Be afraid.. Be very very afraid

[Oscar Namechange]

This is just too frightening to think about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/02/world.politics

Tony Blair has been holding discussions with some of his oldest allies on how he could mount a campaign later this year to become full-time president of the EU council, the prestigious new job characterised as "president of Europe". Blair, currently the Middle East envoy for the US, Russia, EU and the UN, has told friends he has made no final decision, but is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs.

Blair, who is being actively promoted by the French president Nicolas Sarkozy, recognises he would need to abandon his well-paid, private sector jobs if he won. His wife Cherie - often portrayed as seeking ever more wealth and well-paid consultancies for her husband - is understood to be supportive of him accepting the job.

Some Blair allies also say that he now recognises that as envoy in the Middle East he is not going to be allowed to become the key player in furthering Israeli-Palestinian talks this year, and will be reduced to a role of supporting political development in Palestine and boosting its economy.

The president of the European council of ministers is a post created under the Lisbon treaty. The president will be the permanent chair of the council of ministers, Europe's chief decision-making body.

Jonathan Powell, Blair's Downing Street chief of staff, is among the former lieutenants he has met to discuss a bid for the European role.

Some senior figures believe he could yet be a loser in the carve-up of four big European jobs due to be distributed at the end of the French presidency in the second half of this year. Some claim that if the commission president, José Manuel Barroso, wanted to remain in post for a second term, it would be difficult for Blair, a political ally and previous advocate for Barroso, to hold the parallel, prestigious European council job.

Decisions also have to be made on the appointment of a new, "high representative" on foreign policy, and the post of president of the European parliament. Smaller EU countries are sensitive about key jobs being taken by leading figures from larger countries, especially from one that is not part of the eurozone or the Schengen free-movement area, and that actively supports Turkish membership, as Britain has. Some French socialists have already come out against Blair, citing his role in the war in Iraq. Former French president Valéry Giscard D'Estaing has also expressed his opposition.

It is thought that the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, is not persuaded of the advantages of a Blair presidency. The Christian Democrats have recently been politically weakened in state elections, and fear a Blair presidency might strengthen the German Social Democrats. Neither the Germans nor the French would push Blair if they believed his appointment was going to be opposed by Gordon Brown.

Blair himself is still doubtful that the role of council president will become a powerful job, saying he senses that even pro-Europeans might recoil from ceding power from the nation state.

With most countries currently focused on ratifying the Lisbon treaty through their national parliaments, decisions on the powers of the full-time president are unlikely to be made until the second half of the year.

Apart from Blair, two other candidates most often mentioned are the former Austrian chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel, promoted by Germany, and the current Luxembourg prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker.

[qsducks]

Is Karl Rove his new advisor?:eek::eek:

[Galbally]

What are you afraid of? The office of President of the Council of Ministers, or the person who is interested in it, one Tony Blair? Or just the EU in that general way that Brits tend to be?

Personally I think the European Union needs a better functioning executive, especially now, I would opt for a directly-elected one to be honest, though thats not provided for by the Lisbon Treaty.

I wouldn't vote for Tony Blair though.

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1131085 wrote: What are you afraid of? The office of President of the Council of Ministers, or the person who is interested in it, one Tony Blair?

Personally I think the European Union needs a better functioning executive, especially now, I would opt for a directly-elected one to be honest, though thats not provided for by the Lisbon Treaty.

I wouldn't vote for Tony Blair though. It's akin to making Bush 'President of diplomacy and peace'.

[qsducks]

oscar;1131087 wrote: It's akin to making Bush 'President of diplomacy and peace'.


Tony got to chummy with Bush apparently. And Bush thought he was King George himself.

[Oscar Namechange]

qsducks;1131089 wrote: Tony got to chummy with Bush apparently. And Bush thought he was King George himself.


It shows what the pair of them were like when Bush gave Blair America's highest civility award for being wonderfull. It makes me vomit and i can't see how Europe can allow this when it was Blair that took us into an illegal war based on lie's.

YouTube - Tony Blair and George Bush - It Wasn't Me

I have that gmc come in now and tell me Gordon brown is to blame. :sneaky::sneaky:

[Galbally]

oscar;1131087 wrote: It's akin to making Bush 'President of diplomacy and peace'.


Indeed. but what about my original question?

[qsducks]

An award for being "wonderful"? What did Georgie boy make that little award up himself? Whew! Like I said before, Clinton & Blair were a good team, but Tony learned fast to kiss George's ass.

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1131100 wrote: Indeed. but what about my original question?


Just incase you've forgotton galbally

YouTube - Tony Blair and Bush Love Video (to Commemorate 9/11)

I thought we'd seen the back of him. Is he going to give his pal Georgie boy a job?

[gmc]

oscar;1131097 wrote: It shows what the pair of them were like when Bush gave Blair America's highest civility award for being wonderfull. It makes me vomit and i can't see how Europe can allow this when it was Blair that took us into an illegal war based on lie's.

YouTube - Tony Blair and George Bush - It Wasn't Me

I have that gmc come in now and tell me Gordon brown is to blame. :sneaky::sneaky:


There is no doubt he just went along on the coat tales of tony blair. Tony got in on the back of john smith I think people voted for him not tony, the second time I think people just didnt want to believe how bad he was, the third time labour git in was because the tories are even more depressing. Now? I think a cardboad cut out would get in so long as it isn't new labour and gordon brown.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1131366 wrote: There is no doubt he just went along on the coat tales of tony blair. Tony got in on the back of john smith I think people voted for him not tony, the second time I think people just didnt want to believe how bad he was, the third time labour git in was because the tories are even more depressing. Now? I think a cardboad cut out would get in so long as it isn't new labour and gordon brown.


Well, excuse me for being thick for a moment but with the Blair legacy out in the open now, why is he even considered for such a position? It's like being sacked from your job for stealing and then being put in charge of the banking.

[Oscar Namechange]

He can't get anything right can he?

we're still paying for his **** up's

Exclusive: £500,000 bill of Tony Blair's Middle East 'failures' - mirror.co.uk

[gmc]

oscar;1131417 wrote: Well, excuse me for being thick for a moment but with the Blair legacy out in the open now, why is he even considered for such a position? It's like being sacked from your job for stealing and then being put in charge of the banking.


God knows. I find it depressing that other countries even let him in. He's a crook and a liar

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1131805 wrote: God knows. I find it depressing that other countries even let him in. He's a crook and a liar


I'd find Nicolas Sarkozy a better choice than him. Blair should answer war crimes. Even as an envoy to the Middle East is a bloody insult.

[Galbally]

oscar;1131818 wrote: I'd find Nicolas Sarkozy a better choice than him. Blair should answer war crimes. Even as an envoy to the Middle East is a bloody insult.


Sarkozy would make a good Council President I think, but he still has 5 years as the French President to get through. I hope Blair doesn't get it. Three reasons.



Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq.

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1131843 wrote: Sarkozy would make a good Council President I think, but he still has 5 years as the French President to get through. I hope Blair doesn't get it. Three reasons.



Iraq, Iraq, and Iraq.


Afghanistan as well.

[Galbally]

oscar;1131859 wrote: Afghanistan as well.


No I supported Afganistan, I thought the Americans had every right to take action after the September 11th atrocites, and I believe the Afganistan war was justified, though it was cocked up because they got distracted by a totally unjustified and unconnected war in.........

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1132061 wrote: No I supported Afganistan, I thought the Americans had every right to take action after the September 11th atrocites, and I believe the Afganistan war was justified, though it was cocked up because they got distracted by a totally unjustified and unconnected war in.........

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.


If i remember correctly, after 9/11, Bush called for Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden. I don't believe there was any hard eveidence to show that Afghan had him, infact, my personal opinion was that if he had of been there, he was long gone over the borders to Syria or Pakistan.

Five years later and still no sign of Bin Laden and more importantly, no further 9/11's or attacks on the US.

The Taliban, for what ever we thought of it, was the chosen government of the Afghan people.

[Galbally]

oscar;1132190 wrote: If i remember correctly, after 9/11, Bush called for Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden. I don't believe there was any hard eveidence to show that Afghan had him, infact, my personal opinion was that if he had of been there, he was long gone over the borders to Syria or Pakistan.

Five years later and still no sign of Bin Laden and more importantly, no further 9/11's or attacks on the US.

The Taliban, for what ever we thought of it, was the chosen government of the Afghan people.


No I definetely think the Taleban were up to their necks in what Al Queda was doing, and the Americans were right to go into Afganistan (apart from the fact that the Taleban are a bunch of scumbags as well of course, though thats beside the point). Initially that war went well, it was fought with mostly locals involved, for clear objectives, and many afganistani's wanted the Taleban out as well.

But what I think went wrong was that once the Taleban was beaten, and the episodes in Tora Bora were over, the US and the allies lost interest in what then became a process of nation building in Afganistan, and moved onto Iraq. This allowed the peace to never be fully secured, the country not refounded on a secure basis, and for the Taleban to regroup in Pakistan and eventually come back, which is exactly what has happened (with Pakistan being destabilized in the process).

I think that NATO actually does need to fight in Afganistan, and fight hard. The US should be supported in that war in my opinion, its nothing to do with the Iraq war, and its a justifyable conflict that is in our interersts to win. Thats just my opinion, feel free to disagree with me.

[Oscar Namechange]

Galbally;1132200 wrote: No I definetely think the Taleban were up to their necks in what Al Queda was doing, and the Americans were right to go into Afganistan (apart from the fact that the Taleban are a bunch of scumbags as well of course, though thats beside the point). Initially that war went well, it was fought with mostly locals involved, for clear objectives, and many afganistani's wanted the Taleban out as well.

But what I think went wrong was that once the Taleban was beaten, and the episodes in Tora Bora were over, the US and the allies lost interest in what then became a process of nation building in Afganistan, and moved onto Iraq. This allowed the peace to never be fully secured, the country not refounded on a secure basis, and for the Taleban to regroup in Pakistan and eventually come back, which is exactly what has happened (with Pakistan being destabilized in the process).

I think that NATO actually does need to fight in Afganistan, and fight hard. The US should be supported in that war in my opinion, its nothing to do with the Iraq war, and its a justifyable conflict that is in our interersts to win. Thats just my opinion, feel free to disagree with me.


Twelve Reasons to Demand an End to the U.S. Occupation of Afghanistan

by Peace & Justice and International Committees, Professional Staff Congress, CUNY/AFT Local 2334

January 22nd, 2009







(1) The occupation of Afghanistan by U.S. and NATO forces has killed large numbers of civilians, and the death rate is rising. More than 11,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001, many from U.S air strikes, which have obliterated wedding parties and village meetings. The United Nations reported in September that U.S., NATO and Afghan Army forces killed 577 Afghan civilians in the first nine months of 2008, a 21% increase from last year. Human Rights Watch reported that the number of civilian deaths caused by U.S. and NATO airstrikes tripled from 2006 to 2007. In August, a U.S. airstrike killed 90 civilians, 60 of them children who were asleep at the time of the attack. According to the NY Times (7.23.08), U.S. airstrikes are becoming more frequent and deadly: “In June alone, 646 bombs and missiles were used in Afghanistan, the second highest monthly total since the end of major combat operations in 2002.



(2) U.S. and coalition forces have committed many human rights violations – bomb and missile attacks on civilians; the detention, and in some cases torture, of hundreds of Afghans for years without trial at Bagram air base and Guantanamo Bay; and house invasions. These violations have become so grotesque, and have created so much resentment toward the occupiers, that even the Karzai government’s Council of Ministers has bitterly complained.



(3) More than 1,000 U.S. and coalition soldiers have died since 2001, and they are now dying at a record rate. Coalition casualties in 2008 were the highest since the war began; in fact more soldiers were killed this year than in the first four years of the war combined. CUNY students have been and will be sent to Afghanistan. We should oppose all wars in which our students are being asked to fight for economic and strategic advantages that accrue to elites (see # 10 below).



(4) There is no foreseeable end to the occupation and no realistic expectation that the U.S.-led coalition will defeat the insurgents. A RAND analyst recently pronounced, “It is generally accepted now across all [U.S.] government agencies that the situation in Afghanistan has significantly worsened and has become quite dire. The top British military commander in Afghanistan was clearer when he recently stated, “We are not going to win this war.



(5) Last year’s surge in troop numbers didn’t work, and there’s no reason to believe the new surge will succeed. There are now 52,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, up from 36,000 at the beginning of 2007. Yet the Taliban now has a permanent presence in 72% of Afghanistan, up from 54% in 2007. In the first three months of 2008, attacks around Kabul increased by 70%. The Taliban and other rebel groups continue to recruit fighters angered at the civilian casualties caused by U.S. attacks, the corruption of government officials, dire poverty and worsening conditions.



(6) In October 2008, the Congressional Research Service reported that the war in Afghanistan has already cost $173 billion. That price will rise as more troops are deployed and as the war drags on, adding to a huge federal budget deficit and denying money for needed social programs.



(7) Just as the Vietnam War spread into Laos and Cambodia, with terrible consequences, so the war in Afghanistan has spread to Pakistan. Repeated U.S. attacks on Pakistani territory have killed hundreds of civilians, have destabilized Pakistan, and have heightened tensions in the Indian subcontinent, contributing to the threat of a war between India and Pakistan.



(8) The war has worsened living conditions for many Afghans. When the U.S. invaded in 2001, it promised a “bright future for the people of Afghanistan. People are still waiting. The 2007 Afghanistan Human Development Report revealed that only 31% of households have access to clean water, that life expectancy is 43.1 years, adult literacy is 23.5%, 50% of Afghan children under five are malnourished; and 6.6 million Afghans do not meet their minimum daily food requirements. With the flourishing drug trade had come a huge increase in drug addiction, including 60,000 child addicts. Refugees from the countryside have swelled the population of Kabul to over 3 million, with many living in desperate poverty, not far from the palatial mansions of the politicians, drug lords, and racketeers who have gorged themselves on drug money, bribes and foreign aid.



(9) The majority of the Afghan government is composed of Northern Alliance warlords and Islamic fundamentalists, some of whom are heavily involved in the lucrative drug trade. The Northern Alliance is no more progressive than the oppressive Taliban. The warlords of the Northern Alliance have a well-earned reputation for brutality, cruelty toward women, and unrelenting greed. Each warlord controls his own fiefdom and receives a cut of the thriving drug trade that supplies 90% of the world’s heroin. President Karzai’s own brother, Ahmed, is reputedly the country’s biggest drug lord. The national government has very little presence outside the capital, and Karzai is commonly referred to as the “mayor of Kabul. Corruption is rampant and 73% of Afghans polled say that paying a bribe is necessary to get government assistance.



(10) The U.S. occupation is part of a global resource war and not primarily about defeating Al Qaeda. The purported goal of the U.S. and NATO invasion was to destroy Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. This was accomplished. The bases are closed and most Al Qaeda forces have fled the country. So why does the U.S. occupation continue? It’s impossible to ignore the tremendous strategic importance of Afghanistan in the contest to secure control over the planet’s largest remaining reserves of oil and natural gas and their transit routes. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations expressed a keen interest in having pipelines built that would transport oil and gas from the energy-rich Caspian Sea region through Afghanistan to Pakistan and then the Arabian Sea, avoiding Russian or Iranian territory. In addition, the U.S. has built two large permanent military bases in Afghanistan, which can be used in an attack on neighboring Iran, owner of the world’s second largest reserves of oil and natural gas, a rival to the U.S. for influence in the oil-rich Persian Gulf, and the big winner in the overthrow of Iraq’s Baathist regime.



(11) Laura Bush has assured us that Operation Enduring Freedom has liberated the women of Afghanistan. This is a lie. The Taliban cruelly oppressed women, and when they were ousted, Afghan women hoped they could achieve freedom and equality. The sad reality is that the Northern Alliance warlords and jihadists who were empowered by the U.S. invasion have rivaled the Taliban in their repressive policies – insisting that women cover themselves in burqas, and imprisoning those who refuse to accept arranged marriages. Sonali Kolhatkar, the author of Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence, has reported that “Women are being imprisoned in greater numbers than ever before, for the crime of escaping from home or having, quote-unquote, 'sexual relations'--'illegal sexual relations.' Most of these women are simply victims of rape. Warlords and those who work for them have raped with impunity. Recently the Karzai government pardoned two brothers convicted of rape and sent them back to the same neighborhood as their victims.



(12) With the planned surge of 20,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, and growing U.S. conflict with Pakistan, now is the right time to fight for withdrawal. Without pressure from an anti-war movement, the U.S. will not withdraw from Afghanistan, for the reasons stated in #10 above. Some of our friends hesitate because they don’t want the Taliban back in power. The irony is that the U.S., through Saudi Arabia, has already begun negotiating with the Taliban to bring them into a coalition government with Karzai and the Northern Alliance. The force of U.S. weapons gave state power to the oppressive Northern Alliance, first in the early 1990’s and then in October 2001. Only the people of Afghanistan – with fraternal assistance from progressives around the world – can liberate themselves.