Befacing defeat & global humiliation anyone will clutch at the last straws


 
(1) Blair looking to Iran and Syria for peace – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6142252.stm. The prime minister believes the two states should be warned of the consequences of failing to help. Question: So why did they fail to consult these crucial neighbours before embarking on an assault course on Iraq without the UN sanction????? The consequences of these crucial neighbours failing to engage would be disastrous for both Blair and Bush because they already are deep in the s**t they have created.
 
(2) Bush maintains tough line on Iran – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6144900.stm. Mr Bush also showed little enthusiasm to engage with Syria, stressing that the US had already made it clear to Damascus that it should stop interfering in Lebanon and stop harbouring extremists. Question: So this is tough eh? And he considers himself as a moderate not an extremist? Does he think we were born yesterday?
 
(3) ‘No softening’ on Iran and Syria- Blair – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6144996.stm. Britain’s policy towards Iran and Syria has not softened, Downing Street says, despite the prime minister’s call for them to help bring stability to Iraq. Mr Blair went on to say: "There is a fundamental misunderstanding that this is about changing policy on Syria and Iran." Question: Does he think he can fool all the people all the time?
 
(4) Blair pushes Mid East peace to US – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6146110.stm. Resolving the conflict would stop moderate Muslims being stirred up and increase pressure on Iran and Syria to co-operate, Mr Blair told the group. He also said Syria and Iran had to be given the "strategic choice" between being part of the solution or "isolation". Question: If Iran and Syria were considered a part of the solution after the defeat why were these termed as pariah states before the ignoble defeat? Is the west twisting their arms to be extended in seeming ‘solution-led’ partnership?
 
(5) Talking tough from a weak positionhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6146376.stm. which I would call a non-negotiable from the Iranian & Syrian point of view. There doesn’t appear to be much diplomatic room there for engagement over Iraq or anything else. The message is: you have to change, not us. It is an offer Iran and Syria might refuse. So why is the prospect of bringing Iran and Syria into discussion about Iraq and the Middle East even being raised? The answer: is blatantly obvious and obnoxious.
 
(6) Blair accepts ‘disaster’ in Iraq – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160466.stm. Tony Blair has publicly agreed with the opinion that the violence in Iraq since the 2003 invasion has been a disaster. This is as near to being contrite a British Prime Minister is ever likely to get. What price for personal pride?

Leave a comment

Filed under Déjà vu?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s