This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Can Tony Blair survive the fall of Bush
Published on October 29, 2004 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
Seldom in the history of the world do we see the strange sight of two "democratically"elected leaders whose fate is bound together in a deadly embrace.Tony Blair came to power in England offering a way out of Thatcherism and improving public health, education and welfare. In the 7years he has been in power he has shown little inclination of fulfilling these and other promises. He rushed to support Bush in war even though no vital national interest was involved. Anglo-Saxon solidarity was invoked against the Islamic World and now both Bush and Blair are getting deeper and deeper in the Iraqi quagmire. Now war has become an end initself and the war aims have been forgotten because Bush and Blair rushed in without preparation and without a plan for the aftermath. With the impending defeat of George II looming large on the horizon can Tony Blair avoid the inevitable aftermath.
The recent convention of the Labour Party in a formulaic way endorsed the stand of the piolitical leadership in the Commons over the organizational and grass roots agencies. In the election next year Labour may not do too well. However, even the Tories [cannot claim the high ground because forgetting their own history they endorsed a war in which their political and national interests were not involved. It is well to remember that the Tories have not waged an aggressive war in English history. This is the first time they made a mistake and a costly own at that.

c

Comments
on Oct 29, 2004
I seem to remember two leaders bound together, as you eloquently put it, in a potentially deadly embrace. Roosevelt and Churchill realized that there would be a price to pay for their aggressive policies against Germany and Japan in the 1940's. They also realized that Chamberlains complacency towards Hitler and America's Isolationist attitude would eventually force us all to pay an even higher price. I suspect that you and I would not be expressing our opposing views in this public forum if they had chosen a pacifist route.

The current situation is very much different than it was 65 years ago but the consequences of complacency are no less deadly - in fact, much more so. We are no longer dealing with nations that outwardly oppose us and their organized armies. Today's enemy is a web of stealthy organizations spread around the globe with no allegiance to any single country but using the civilian populations of many to remain hidden. Due to their distorted views of Islam, Survival is not a prerequsite to victory, meaning that they are quite content to destroy themselves if it means destroying us because of what they are promised in the "otherworld".

I respect your views and many years ago would have embraced them. Today the circumstances are much different and I'm thankful that Bush and Blair are willing to reject the complacency of the past few decades and go after them instead of waiting for them to come at us again.

By the way, "impending defeat" of GWB? A bit hopeful on your part I think.
on Oct 29, 2004
Bush Blair Patnership and the price we have to pay

By: Bahu Virupaksha
Posted: Friday, October 29, 2004 on Discussion on History and Politics
Message Board: Politics
With the impending defeat of George II


Wishful thinking, I believe.
on Oct 30, 2004
They also realized that Chamberlains complacency towards Hitler and America's Isolationist attitude would eventually force us all to pay an even higher price. I suspect that you and I would not be expressing our opposing views in this public forum


There is a fundamental difference between the 1930s and now and no one that I am aware of has outlined those differences than Henry Kissenger in his Diplomacy. Appeacement is not the solution to terrorism. Having said that,I hasten to state that Iraq weighed down by war and 15 years of sanctions was looking to re engage with the rest of the world. Instead of engaging with Iraq like the USA did with Lybia, there was a build up for war. And it was wrong because of the horrendous civillian caualities. Even Americans are admitting to the killing of 100,000 Iraqis.