[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070628" target="_blank">Goodbye, Blair</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> June 28, 2007

Tony Blair is Prime Minister no more. He officially stepped down yesterday, making Labour Party leader Gordon Brown the new PM of Great Britain. <br> <br>Mr. Blair was in power for almost exactly 10 years and his decade of rule was enormously transformative for the country. His government sought to reform or abolish anachronistic institutions of governance, while simultaneously expanding the role of the state through new and powerful bureaucracies. He sought to make the UK a more welcoming place for immigrants, and ushered in a new era of \"British federalism\" by delegating unprecedented powers to the regional governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Added up, there can be no denying that conventional notions of “what Britain is” have been irreversibly challenged. <br> <br>In foreign affairs Blair has of course become best known for his unwavering support of the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. People often call him a puppet or poodle of Bush, but such labels disguise Blair\'s own passionate belief in the need for an aggressively interventionist, pre-emptive foreign policy. For good or ill, he\'s as much a \"neo-con\" as anyone in Washington. <br> <br>Mr. Blair was the most successful Labour Party PM in British history, but it seems his successes were always greatest with the UK\'s \"silent majority,\" that is the centrist voters of the middle class. Hardline conservatives and liberals alike both dispised him, and since their views tend to dominate the media and internet discourse, one can be excused for thinking Blair was the most hated ruler in British history. In my mind, that was Blair\'s single greatest achievement- his willingness to transcend traditional notions of “right” and “left” and embrace a much less ideological and far more pragmatic, personality-driven approach to partisan governance.

[Mysterio10]

That's awesome!

[Dryhad]

Newsbot wrote:

In my mind, that was Blair\'s single greatest achievement- his willingness to transcend traditional notions of “right” and “left” and embrace a much less ideological and far more pragmatic, personality-driven approach to partisan governance.

This kind of sentiment always bugs me. At best, Blair did exactly what any other good political leader ever would do, which is what he thought was right. The fact that this wasn't what the far left or the far right wanted him to do doesn't make it any more noble than if it was. At worst, Blair embodied everything that is wrong with Social Democracy today, that it is no longer either socialist, nor democratic, and has pretty much abandoned everything it ever held dear in a mad grasp for more votes. Blair, as you rightly point out, had this down to a fine art. However, I'm not of the opinion that the ability to grab and cling on to as many votes as possible automatically makes someone a good leader. Too often we think a good politician is automatically a good leader, and during Blair's term (whether by his hand or not) it was this thinking that dominated British politics.

[baylee]

Gotta wonder how long it will take until bush( American Government) re attaches those puppett string to the new British PM

[Scrappy]

Oh don't' worry Bayleaf, the Muslims in England run the show now. Get ready for the Morals Police carrying canes to whip us filthy females into shape Bayleaf. Happy now dip shit. England is now back into the dark ages, praise Allah your prophet Bayleaf. Of course the Burka will hide all that body fat Bayleaf needs to stuff into spandex weekly.

[Kjorteo]

Well, now, that was a little uncalled for.

[Calbeck]

baylee wrote:

Gotta wonder how long it will take until bush( American Government) re attaches those puppett string to the new British PM

To re-attach something, it must have first been attached to begin with. -:)

Incidentally, I find it mildly amusing to note how many of the same exact accusations being levied against Bush and Blair now were levied in 1942 against Roosevelt and Churchill. Each nation supposedly had the other on the puppet-strings, depending on what bunch of loonies one was talking to (especially the Brit Fascists and US-German Bund).

Both leaders were accused of "dragging", "lying" and "manuevering" their respective nations into war, usually on the theory of some sort of "rich corporation" connection. And just as Bush's connections to the oil industry are all the proof anyone seems to need to accuse him of seizing Iraqi petroleum, FDR's connections to the shipbuilding industry and US Steel were enough for his detractors to accuse him of "provoking the Japanese" and "allowing Pearl Harbor". Churchill was accused of "allowing" the Luftwaffe to attack London.

And of course all of this was to keep the people in fear so they would keep voting the "warmongers" into power.

And just as now, back then no one had any proof of any of this; appearances, agitation propaganda, and ignorance were and are enough to mobilize millions to support the unsupportable.

[sasquatch2]

Calbek wrote

Quote:

And just as now, back then no one had any proof of any of this; appearances, agitation propaganda, and ignorance were and are enough to mobilize millions to support the unsupportable.

Very true and an apt parrallel.

However times have changed......back then such remarks in Britain especially after Dunkirk could get you locked up for the duration.

Baylee?Segment/Ladybug would get relocated to some camp deep in the bush North of Superior to practice his Paul Bunyan routine.

[Dryhad]

Calbeck wrote:

Incidentally, I find it mildly amusing to note how many of the same exact accusations being levied against Bush and Blair now were levied in 1942 against Roosevelt and Churchill. Each nation supposedly had the other on the puppet-strings, depending on what bunch of loonies one was talking to (especially the Brit Fascists and US-German Bund).

Both leaders were accused of "dragging", "lying" and "manuevering" their respective nations into war, usually on the theory of some sort of "rich corporation" connection. And just as Bush's connections to the oil industry are all the proof anyone seems to need to accuse him of seizing Iraqi petroleum, FDR's connections to the shipbuilding industry and US Steel were enough for his detractors to accuse him of "provoking the Japanese" and "allowing Pearl Harbor". Churchill was accused of "allowing" the Luftwaffe to attack London.

And of course all of this was to keep the people in fear so they would keep voting the "warmongers" into power.

And just as now, back then no one had any proof of any of this; appearances, agitation propaganda, and ignorance were and are enough to mobilize millions to support the unsupportable.

Interesting, isn't it, that the "parallels" you choose are of accusations of the leaders allowing attacks on their nations. Of course, no similar arguments have been made regarding the Iraq war because there were no attacks on the coalition forces before they entered Iraq. Whichever way you spin it, Pearl Harbor happened and London was bombed. And even if they hadn't, Hitler unambiguously broke practically every agreement made post WWI regarding what Germany wasn't allowed to do. So apart from the fact that the leaders at the time were accused of dishonesty (which happens to every leader eventually, during war or peace time), were there any connections at all between that war and this? I'm really confused by this, this is the second time I've heard someone connect these two wars by way of analogy (something stupid about "Did Curtin have an exit strategy?" to which the answer hilariously was "Yes") and I'm wondering if those who support the Iraq war really don't see that not all wars are fought for the exact same reasons under the exact same circumstances.

[Voyager]

Dryhad, did you happen to miss all the shooting in the no-fly zone, the assaination attempts, or all that stuff? I know they were pretty pathetically impotent, but "Well the car-bomb didn't go off," is a pretty lame defense.

[Scape]

The Abuse of the No-Fly Zones as an Excuse for War

The bombing escalated from "virtually none" in March and April 2002 to an average of 10 tons a month between May and August 2002, then increased to 54.6 tons in September 2002 and stayed at that level or higher until 2003.

[westmanguy]

OMG, Yay!!

The Labours won't win next election!

The Tories (Conservatives) will win! this is great... a conservative revival in Britain!

[Calbeck]

Dryhad wrote:

Interesting, isn't it, that the "parallels" you choose are of accusations of the leaders allowing attacks on their nations. Of course, no similar arguments have been made regarding the Iraq war

Perhaps you've missed the millions of people who fervently believe that Bush "allowed" 9/11 to justify the Iraq War. Hence the corollary.

Quote:

And even if they hadn't, Hitler unambiguously broke practically every agreement made post WWI regarding what Germany wasn't allowed to do.

As Hussein broke over two-thirds of the cease-fire terms he agreed to in 1991. The difference is that a cease-fire is not a peace treaty, and does not provide an end to a conflict. Broaching its terms gives any opposing signatory the right to re-commence hostilities at its leisure. And the UN named the US as a signatory right off the bat.

Scape wrote:

The bombing escalated from "virtually none" in March and April 2002 to an average of 10 tons a month between May and August 2002, then increased to 54.6 tons in September 2002 and stayed at that level or higher until 2003.

And your point is?

[Interrobang]

NFZ Details:

“In the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox during December 1998, Iraq announced it would no longer respect the no-fly zones and resumed its efforts in shooting down Allied aircraft. Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to anyone who could accomplish this task, but no manned aircraft were ever shot down by Iraq. Air strikes by the British and Americans against Iraqi claimed anti-aircraft and military targets continued weekly over the next few years.

The operation continued until it transitioned to Operation Southern Focus in June of 2002. The United States and its allies carried out military strikes against Iraqi targets after being fired on by Iraqi anti-aircraft installations. The Iraqi government in turn, claimed the NFZ were illegal. The NFZ operations had the effect of reducing Iraqi ability to counter air strikes prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

In retaliation for the Iraqi's now-daily air defense attacks on coalition aircraft, the September attacks included a 5 September 100-aircraft attack on the main air defense site in western Iraq. According to an editorial by Michael Smith for the New Statesman, this was "Located at the furthest extreme of the southern no-fly zone, far away from the areas that needed to be patrolled to prevent attacks on the Shi’a; it was destroyed not because it was a threat to the patrols, but to allow allied special forces operating from Jordan to enter Iraq undetected."’

-Wikipedia
(hope you don’t mind the direct quote)

[Scape]

From the link:

Quote:

However, the United Nations never authorized the no-fly zones. From Iraq's perspective, this is a case of foreign military aircraft encroaching upon the air space of a sovereign nation. As a result, Iraq--like any country--has every legal right to fire upon them.

The strikes went up in drastic number in the months prior to the war. Strikes that were looking for a fight not a target.