Question to The Independent: If not us – who WILL stand against terror and dictators?

by

Comment at end

Or –

23rd May 2011

As Britain finally leaves Iraq the hand-wringing leader at The Independent on Sunday begs this question-

IN THIS WORLD OF DICTATORSHIPS AND ANTI-DEMOCRACY STATES & ENTITIES,

IF BRITAIN AND THE WEST DO NOT STAND AGAINST THEM …

WHO WILL?

My own question to the Independent, notwithstanding their proclaimed longstanding support of TONY BLAIR’S liberal interventionism, reminds me of this –

THE TALE OF THE LITTLE RED HEN

Who will help me plant the grains of wheat (democracy)?

Not I, said the UN, I only do peace-keeping.

Not I, said the Russians, I only do deal-making.

Not I, said the Chinese, I don’t do human rights.

Right, said the Little Red Hen, I’ll have to do it all by myself.

[If you missed this Infant school story watch it here]

Intervention is as intervention does, dear Independent on Sunday.

For years, and even today in many quarters, the fond belief was/is that the purpose of the United Nations was to stand against such states and groups. This, despite their inaction and/or insufficient action over such as Sudan (2 million dead) still ongoing in Darfur.

It is now clear to all with eyes to see that the “peace-keeping” (what peace to keep?) UN is incapable of pro-activity. Even its reactivity to events is often too late to save hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of lives. And despite well-meaning intent it often  makes no real, lasting difference for good.

It also hardly needs pointing out – but I will anyway as The Independent and others of the “none of our business” ilk clearly need reminding – that seldom do other great nations of the world step in for humanitarian reasons, or even part-humanitarian reasons – where need is great. How often do Russia, China, Iran, Brazil, India, South Africa to name but a few, send forces to defend the downtrodden of this world?

This is not a rhetorical question. Please do send me a list.

For Iraq, and for the success story that it is to many(here and here) I thank Tony Blair (45,000 soldiers) and George Bush (148,000 troops) as well as the other nations’ leaders, Australia (2000),  Spain (1300) and Poland (194). When the going in was tough and other feet were cold and despite the UN’s shameful determination to ignore its own resolutions of the previous 12 years, these few nations were in the forefront. The scores of nations which came in after the initial invasion also deserve thanks but nothing like those due to the USA, United Kingdom, Australia, Spain & Poland.

Lest we forget the invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 70,000.[9] In the latter stages of the invasion 620 troops of the Iraqi National Congress opposition group were deployed to southern Iraq.[3] See Coalition & Allied contingent involvement

NOTE: On Iraq Wikipedia has been compiled in the main by those with an ‘anti’ stance. It doesn’t even mention Spain. Spain was forced to withdraw when terrorists scored a hit by attacking a train killing 200 hundred people. The Spanish government then lost the election which followed as the Spanish voters capitulated to terrorism. We Britons seem to be made of sterner stuff. Tony Blair won again in 2005 – a third historic victory for Labour.

Bodies of Qusay and Uday Hussein, in pictures released by the USA. It seems their faces were "reconstructed" after being killed. You'd think someone might have done the same to Osama Bin Laden, wouldn't you? Just to take a picture and put unbelieving minds at rest.

INEXACTITUDE 1

It would help if the anti-Iraq war Indie told the truth in its perpetual hand wringing as to the “number of dictators removed from control of Iraq: one.”

There were at least two more dictators-in-waiting that were removed (Saddam’s sons, pictured right & below) and others in Saddam’s administration who were later tried by the Iraqi government.

INEXACTITUDE 2

The Independent also chose its opinion polls selectively in this piece. I do recognise that most of the time, most polls here in Britain and in Iraq have not been supportive of the invasion. But they do change and move. To paraphrase Chinese words on French Revolution – “it is too early to tell”.

This opinion poll taken in Iraq in 2006 paints a very different picture

For a write-up on this and other polls in Iraq see World Public Opinion

Those who suffered most under Saddam – the Kurds and Shias  – were most pleased to be rid of him. Even at that 77% of Iraqis overall felt the same relief.

Referring to a BBC opinion poll in August 2007 the Independent leader says that 63 per cent of [Iraqis] said the invasion was wrong, and 37 per cent right.  The Independent also says that the British public agrees – “Before the war, in March 2003, 38 per cent approved of military action to remove Saddam.”

There is another poll – from ICM a month later – which shows that 63% of the British public approved

This will be the poll to which the Independent refers as “support briefly massaged to 63 percent”. Their message being that the British public were gulled or lulled into accepting (briefly) that the Iraq invasion was a good idea (when clearly, according to the Indie, it wasn’t.)

INEXACTITUDE 3

As if that wasn’t misleading enough the Independent then shows just how wrong-headed is its own analysis. It says, turning logic on its head –

“No democratic country can hope to sustain a successful military engagement with domestic opinion so divided, because public support is so essential to forces’ morale. “

They are forgetting that this democratic country DID sustain a successful military engagement, with or without supportive domestic opinion.  It sustained it for EIGHT YEARS.

Of course The Independent tries to score some common sense points of its own, with –

“What is surprising, perhaps, is that the Iraq disaster has failed to discredit the idea of liberal interventionism, which The Independent on Sunday .”

At the same time blaming Blair, THE INTERVENTIONIST (Chicago speech) – the Indie says –

“… the experience of Iraq may have ensured that interventions will now be more cautiously based on worst-case assumptions.”

This paper’s errors of judgement are compounded by supporting/excusing the Libya intervention with this –

“In Libya, for example, the situation was very different. There, Gaddafi was threatening a bloodbath in Benghazi; limited military action was justified, and the need for it was urgent.”

In other word the thousands that Saddam had already killed and those he had imprisoned, tortured and still threatened were no concern of ours? But those that Gaddafi might kill were our concern?

How careless. How selective.  How inconsistent. How utterly negligent.

The Independent then claims its own success with this –

“After many years, this newspaper’s campaign to persuade the Government to give legal force to the Military Covenant is finally bearing fruit. The covenant enshrines the terms of the deal, by which we promise to give service personnel and their families the support they deserve for risking their lives.”

And just to make sure all good Liberal Democrats (it can ONLY be Lib Dems who support this confused argument) leave their paper content on their high-horse it ends with –

“In the end, none of the statistics can adequately sum up the loss of life suffered, mostly by Iraqis, as a consequence of a bad American decision, wrongly supported by the British government. And what will never be forgotten about this chapter in British foreign policy is this statistic about the stated reason for our going to war – number of weapons of mass destruction found: zero.”

There is never any consideration given by these “where are the WMD” screamers that if WMD had been there (more than just those they had already used against the Kurds and Iranians) the Middle East and further afield could have been a tinder-box many years ago. There is also never any responsibility put upon the Iraqis (or near neighbours) who still today kill Iraqis. It is as though Tony Blair forced them to kill one another. Lulled and gulled again, eh, gullible, brainwashing Independent?

So once again, thank you Mr Blair and Mr Bush for your work for freedom in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

RELATED

Julie’s think tank has an excellent piece here –  Iraq: From dictatorship to Democracy

As the government of which he is a leading member battles for regime change in Libya, while pretending it is doing nothing of the sort, Nick Clegg must surely know the futility and even fallacy of his own words “democracy cannot be created by diktat” at least in relation to Iraq (Libya is as yet an unfinished story). If only Clegg and the Independent and other such were big enough to admit it.

EARLIER POSTS HERE ON THE UN

Back to top

Click to Buy Tony Blair’s ‘A Journey’

_______________

Sign the Ban Blair-Baiting petition here

Recent comments:

I am staggered by all the hate directed towards our former Prime Minister. I believe that Tony Blair made the Iraq decision in good faith and is most certainly NOT a war criminal. If anyone should be tried at the Hague it should be those in the media for totally misrepresenting the information and facts. The media are to blame for fuelling this hatred as it is purely driven by them. (UK)

__________
The greatest and most successful leader the Labour Party has ever had with the courage to fight the Islamist terrorists who really would like to kill us all, and you never hear a good word about him. The herd of independent minds, commentators, activists etc who have never had to make a difficult decision in their lives drown out all debate with their inane chants of war crimes and blood on his hands. Defend him at every chance. I just wish more people would do it. (Glasgow, UK)
__________
Blair was the greatest Labour Prime Minister. It is a disgrace that the party has turned away from his legacy. Shame on Ed Miliband and his so-called ‘new generation’.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to “Question to The Independent: If not us – who WILL stand against terror and dictators?”

  1. celia walters Says:

    the difference between Libya and Iraq is that Libya is being done by a Tory led government and therefore as the owners of the newspapers who are rich and therefore naturally prevalent towards a party which loves the rich are now in charge where in Iraq it was a Labour led government

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      True, celia.

      Pity the Labour-supporting press were also brainwashed on Iraq. The Guardian & The Independent are both now Lib Dem supporting. Wonder how they square that with LD support for Tony Blair-style interventionism over Libya? Of course they don’t square it. They just ignore their own inconsistencies.

      One day they’ll pay for this pc and populist nonsense. Can hardly wait.

  2. celia walters Says:

    Yes they will pay but so unfortunately will the rest of us who use our own minds and aren’t brainwashed by this dribble

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      Caught a snippet of R4’s Any Questions/Any Answers today. When they were debating Mladic I expected one of the panel to come out with “when are we going to sendTony Blair to the Hague for war crimes?” – to the usual applause from the New Interventionism supporters – the Lib Dems in the audience. As it happened no-one did. But the callers made up for that . Two of them said that the victors invariably never answer for “war crimes” so we won’t see Blair/Bush/ Israeli leaders indicted. Such a DAFT position to take. The reasons they don’t “answer” is because they didn’t order “war crimes”. Their actions or the actions of their troops, for good or ill, took place in a war setting. When they are found wanting such actions are dealt with by miltary courts.

      The west has been at war with Islamist fundamentalism for decades, if not centuries, declared by such as Bin-Laden, and Israel is an inclusive democracy which responds to attacks from its enemies all around it.

      The legitimacy or otherwise of Israel’s existence is, as it happens, beside the point. As is the legality or otherwise of the Iraq invasion. These insane killers of their own people continue to kill their own to this very day in order to get onside the little western liberal democrats who understand neither liberalism nor democracy.This populist moral relativism is shocking, especially when it comes from those who reckon their thinking is unblemished and unquestionable.

  3. Karen Says:

    But the worst was The Daily Mirror so anti Iraq there treatment of Tony was apalling horrible front pages disgusting Piers Morgan was editor at that time and this from the only Labour supporting paper in Britain a difference opinion okay but they went too far.I don’t know how Tony Blair can breath the same air as Piers!!.

    • keeptonyblairforpm Says:

      The Mirror is a rag too filthy to pick up dog mess with. At least we know the Mail is Tory, and the Independent is so-called independent-minded and the Guardian is full of opinionated if brain-dead Old Labourites. There are some journos at the Mirror who would clearly fail an IQ test level 100 – which is supposed to indicate the average. Personally, I don’t know anyone that dull.

      Piers Morgan is a disgrace. Fortunately Tony Blair doesn’t seem to hold grudges. Just as well.

  4. Chicago Kurdish Cultural Center Says:

    Chicago Kurdish Cultural Center…

    […]Question to The Independent: If not us – who WILL stand against terror and dictators? « Tony Blair[…]…

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s