Thursday, May 17, 2007

Goodbye Tony Blair and Thanks.


Many years from now, Tony Blair, along with George Bush, will be recognized as "heroes" and visionaries in the global war on terror. They gave up their political ambitions in an attempt to beat back the terrorist agenda to wreak havoc on the western world. Both have suffered greatly politically and personally for their beliefs and convictions. They did not shy away from their primary duty as heads of state to defend their nations and their people's way of life. They knew this war on these terrorists is not just about Al Qaida and Bin Laden, it is an unconventional and brutal world wide extremist religious movement that has been picking up momentum for the last 20 years or so with no end in sight. It is not going to end when Blair and Bush leave the stage. They were extremely hamperred in their mission by trying to fight this war under the weight of Geneva convention rules with conventional troops and outdated tactics. No force, no matter how powerful and sophisticated, can win a war when it follows ALL the rules while the other side ignores them completely and goes so far as to raise their offspring, like cattle to slaughter, to commit suicide for their cause. Asymmetric warfare must be met with a like kind response or else we might as well submit and surrender because we will just be fighting a delaying tactic and a very slow retreat.

19 comments:

sonia said...

I agree with you that history will judge Tony Blair (and George W. Bush) less harshly than contemporary pundits. But I don't think that following (or not following) Geneva conventions has any impact on winning or losing a war. Wars have been won by those who fought according to rules, and they have been lost by those who broke them, as many times as the opposite.

Wars are won by those who are stronger. Only time will tell who is stronger, the Western Civilization or the Radical Islam. And whoever wins, humanity will survive.

Btw, I read your comment on Renegade Eye's blog. MarxistFrom Lebanon's response to your comment was probably the most incoherent piece of gibberish I have ever read. I wrote about it here.

roman said...

sonia,

You're right, of course, that the Geneva rules should be followed by every side in every conflict. I do believe, however, that when the lives of many innocents are at risk from an enemy who totally disregards these rules, the commander in chief(the president) under some legal mechanism, should be able to temporarily set aside some of these rules. Don't get me wrong, this is not to condone torture but allow supervised proven enhanced interrogation techniques which are non-lethal and cause no lasting harm to the prisoner. Without this legal mechanism, any order during the heat of a violent attack may later wind up as a crime against humanity in the world court at the Hague. Unlike the overeaching ACLU and anti-war surrender crowd, I have faith in our justice system and free press to make sure that things do not get out of control.

MarxistfromLebanon is usually more coherent than his reply to my comment on Ren's site. The scary thing is that I actually understood his badly worded rhetorical question. I guess one can learn to predict the underlying meaning (even without the words) just from previous comment exchanges with the same individual.

beakerkin said...

Roman

I hate to disagree with you but MFL is almost never coherent. He blames Britan for the actions of Israel??????? He blames America for Israel's actions??????? Last I checked Israel was an independent country.

MFL makes zero mention of the actions of Iranian and Syrian puppets and narco-terrorists Hezbollah in starting the fighting.
I understand the frustration of being bombed may have something to do with it, having survived two blasts myself.

If you get a chance do take the time to read Bridgitte Gabriel's account of the Lebanese Civil War.
Gabriel's account of the Marxist involvement in massacres is not commonly discussed.

beakerkin said...

Roman

Do take the time to read his Elmer Fudd rantings at a poster named Happy Arab who objected to Communism on his own blog. The Happy Arab was labeled a "neocon" for his objection to Communism.

He is not coherent, seriously.

roman said...

beakerkin,

Thanks for stopping by my site. You are welcome anytime.
When I stated that MFL was usually more coherent, I only meant in a "grammatical" way. Putting words together to complete a sentence. I know his interpretation of historical facts do not quite align with mine and probably yours. I am, however, intrigued by how he forms the basis for some of the political conclusions he forms. Is it the local press coverage or is it, in fact, his personal experiences. I find it very strange that the gulf of understanding is so wide between his and my worldview. We can be, at any time, describing the very same facts but his conclusions are always directly opposite from mine. How can that be?

roman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beakerkin said...

Roman

Read VS Naipul. Paraphrasing... A writer who aligns himself with a great cause such as Islam or Communism prostitutes himself. One must tailor the facts to fit the theology.

As you or I walk independent of movemens we are free to draw our own conclusions without interference.

jams o donnell said...

I hope soemthing positive comes out of the end of the Iraq inavasion. The situation does not look good at the moment.

Iraq has been a stumbling block for Blair in terms of public opinion. Labour had its majority cut severely at the 2005 election in no small part due to protest votes.

Leaving Iraq aside, the government has been quite successful in many respects: a stable economy (not the boom and bust as presided over by the tories,)lower crime rates. Blair is unique in that he is the first Labour leader to win three full terms. A lot in the party may resent him but he has given it, it's most successful run.

I think he did the right thing in stepping down, although he should have gone before (he said he would two years ago and as a result has been in edffect a lame duck PM)

roman said...

jams,

Blair is very much liked here in the states because of his intelligence and communications skills. Maybe he could stand for president of US? He certainly looks and sounds more appealing than most of our candidates, both Democrats and Republicans.

roman said...

beakerkin,

Thanks, I'm going to look for VS Naipul on my next trip to the bookstore. Sound like my kind of author.

beakerkin said...

VS Naipul wrote two excellent books that I read. Among The Believers and Beyond Belief. They are the best books on Islam off the beaten path.

Naipul travels to Iran, Indonesia,
Pakistan and one other country and discusses the impact of Islam on the culture. In the first book his guide is an Iranian Communist and the adventures are memorable.

Naipul is a professional writer whose style and flights of fancy are easy on the reader. The books are invaluable glimpses into the little known subcultures such as the persecuted Ahmadis of Pakistan and an encounter with the Baloch.

Renegade Eye said...

I can see why you allowed the commentary to stray to speaking about MFL's grammar. Most of what was said was wishful thinking.

His legacy today, is he strengthened Iran, and helped install what will eventually be a Shiite strongman. In desperation he had to resort to funding Sunni groups, opposed to Iran, as Fatah in Lebanon along with Bush and the Saudis.

beak: I picked MFL to be a writer on my blog because he opposes nationalism and Islamism. You obviously never read his blog. I don't expect you to comprehend that.

If you want to read anti-Palestinian racism, go to Beak's place.

beakerkin said...

Ren

Racism??????? How is one racist against a group that is non racial?
There is not and has ever been a Palestinian etnicity.

This myth has been a fiction of the far left. Arabs have an abundance of real estate allready. There are scores of of people who live under the yoke of Arab hagemony.

Do ask MFL who started the Civil war in his Country. Do ask him about Pseudostinian's butchering Christian. Do ask him about the Commie vermin who aided the Pseudostinians in their slaughter.

Sorry if reality doesn't meet the bigoted fairy tales.

I have read MFL's blog it is incoherent

Pete's Blog said...

Just returning to the subject of this post.

After 9/11 if terrorism was the threat why did Bush/Blair decide to invade Iraq and not Saudi Arabia? The CIA knew BEFORE 9/11 that Saddam has virtually no connections with al Qaeda.

Most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia (with Saudis in the leadership including bin Laden) so why didn't Bush aim his invasion strategy at Saudi Arabia.

Assuming oil is the world's most important strategic commodity why shouldn't it play a part in Bush/Blairs calculations?

It seems to many that Bush was merely waiting for an excuse to invade Iraq. A major fiasco, like Vietnam, by any measure.

Renegade Eye said...

MFL is getting heat from Lebanese bloggers, being accused of being pro-Zionist, for not hating Jews.

Pete's Blog said...

Roman

Maybe you should have written your post about "MFL".

Am I missing something or are commenters intentionally avoiding the topic of your Blair/Bush post?

Pete

roman said...

ren,

I must admit that I have some respect and admiration for MFL. Even though I disagree with many of his views, his courage to speak his mind from such a dangerous location as Lebanon speaks volumes. Considering the fact that extreme radical Islamic fundamentalist elements view him as someone in direct opposition to their cause and unlike many of us bloggers outside the ME, he is easily within their reach. In his case, anonymity takes on a more important meaning. Hopefully, he can keep his identity anonymous for his personal safety. It is for this reason that I am not able to dismiss his views and will continue to give consideration to his writings.

roman said...

Pete,

I don't really mind when the comments go "off topic". Most of the time, it is because some other pressing matter comes to light and the "heat" of conviction is on display. We all are, in fact, most true and honest to our viewpoints when having to defend them.
Back to Tony Blair.
The reason for my post was to offset, in a small way, some of the blistering attacks on him by the main stream British press. They recently portayed him as the devil incarnate for his support for the Iraq invasion and completely ignoring the splendid job he did on national security, the economy and the languishing Irish "troubles".

beakerkin said...

Ren

MFL is one of many anti-semites at your site. The fact is that you throw the anti-semites red meat like your defense of the planets most notorious anti semite Norman Finkelstein, the non Jooish Joo and the political wisdom of Nina Hartley.

CB, Sonia and Roman may give you a free pass, but it is blatant and obvious. You seem to get unhinged at my mention of Joanne Chessimard on Sonia's site on the Posada thread. You never seem to mind Brown, LWB and others dragging Israel into every post.

One can respect Beatroot, Redwine and Jams for their honesty but you are a mindless appologist.