Tony Blair: White Saviour

September 25, 2013 at 6:30 pm

Remember that film – Being John Malkovich? I think there’s opportunity for a sequel of sorts there, we’ll call it ‘Being Tony Blair’. The storyline will centre around a young man desperate for answers to pivotal questions such as:

  • How does it feel to be right all the time, and to be surrounded by people who are so wrong all the time?
  • What does a peace envoy actually do?
  • How does Tony sleep at night?
  • What does Tony say in his confessions at church?
  • Did Tony know that there were no WMDs in Iraq?
  • Does Tony feel even a tiny single shred of regret at the deaths of a million Iraqis?

Actually, we probably know all the answers to those questions and the film only would serve as just another Tony Blair vanity exercise. He’d probably masturbate himself to sleep at the thought of his face appearing on billboards all over the world, he’d revel in the fact that an accomplished method actor would should choose to play him, and as such indulge him in his tales of politicking and war-criming etc.

So no, I won’t be pushing that project any further. But I will write about him. And as I do, I feel like the aura of slime that follows him everywhere has detected this and is now making it’s way towards me, ready to infiltrate my brain and remove those nasty images of Tony authorising the UK to bomb the f*ck out of Iraq  and replace them with images of him running gaily through a meadow with happy Iraqi children throwing flower petals through the air.

Well Tony, understated, quiet little Tony was in the Guardian today reminding us yet again of how he knows everything and we know nothing especially when it comes to the Middle East or, as Tony calls it, Israel. Today he was talking about Bashar al Assad, who the papers have been telling us for ages definitely used Chemical Weapons on civilians in August and is therefore a War Criminal. Understated, quiet little Tony was telling us that we should not let Assad off the hook if he doesn’t give all of his Chemical Weapons to the US (who have never, ever used Chemical Weapons).

What Tony also told us, and if you have some kind of beverage in your mouth please swallow fully before reading on, is that the UN Resolution is absolutely vital. If he breaches the UN Resolution, we have to ‘enforce the will of the International Community’. Yes you did read correct. Tony said that the UN Resolution was vital. Just like the one that the US and the UK obtained allowing them to go to war with Iraq. What number was it again?

Unsurprisingly Tony said that if he were Prime Minister today, he would have pushed very hard to be with America as an ally before going on to add ‘It’s the results that count. I’m not particularly concerned if we do it elegantly or inelegantly.’ I can only speculate as to what that actually means, but it certainly does not sound good. And I think that’s what angers me so much about Tony, it’s not just the illegal war that killed over a million Iraqis based on a Lie of Mass Destruction, or the repeated refusals to accept any blame, or the fact that the allies used Chemical weapons without punishment in Fallujah, or the fact that he has gone on to be a Peace Envoy in the Middle East. No, that all contributes massively, but what really angers me is the ‘White Saviour’ mentality he displays. He actually believes that the Western way is the best way and is seemingly prepared use any excuse to enforce that militarily or at least under-handedly.

This breed of ‘White Saviour’ to me doesn’t seem to be a million miles away from the desires of a fanatacist. He stubbornly believes that the Western way of life is perfect, that everything we do is right, that everyone different is wrong, that ‘we’ must do all we can to convince them of that and if we can’t? Bomb the fuck out of them. The only difference between Tony and the infamous fascists of the past is his public persona. In public Tony is unflappable, calm, cool, collected,scripted, speaks in a middle class English accent and rarely ever displays any negative forms of emotion whereas the fascist figures of the past are depicted as much more fiery, angry, heated, ranty, spontaneous, spoke with a foreign accent and were more likely to show their emotion.

This is how he manages to get away with it. I just hope the people of Britain aren’t taken in by his bullshit.

Diplomacy Isn’t Working

August 26, 2013 at 11:46 am

I was speaking to a friend the other day about Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning, whether or not what they did is justifiable and we naturally ended up talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. He was saying that the US still hasn’t learnt its lessons from Vietnam, that regardless of how good your military technology is, if you don’t know the surrounding area very well you’re going to be in for a long hard slog.

At first I agreed, it made sense. But then I got to thinking… Maybe they have learned their lessons. See my friend made the assumption that the US wanted a quick: ‘In, Kill the bad guys, Out’ strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. But really, where’s the profit in that? The assumption he made implies that the US is a force for good in the world, that they genuinely wanted to help the Iraqis or Afghans, but is that really the case?

Of course not. Where people are involved, nothing is ever quite that simple. There may well have been an element of misguided ‘White Saviour Syndrome’ in the decision making process, but the lobbying system over in the US means that pretty much any decision made by government is guaranteed to have been corrupted by money and corporations at some stage. I wish that Snowden or Manning had stumbled across a document that revealed the decision making process behind the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, but so far they haven’t released anything of that nature so all we can do is look at the situation, see who has benefited most and come up with some conspiracy theories.

If one thing is clear, the civilians on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan have benefited the least. Both countries are now former shadows of themselves, with Iraq now a hotbed of sectarian violence that long ago spiralled beyond anyone’s control and Afghanistan now a wreck of a country where nobody really seems to be in charge. It appears that America made some fatal miscalculations when considering what civilians in both countries actually wanted, if indeed their wishes were even considered. The American assumption was quite simply that everybody in Iraq would be better off without Saddam and that everybody in Afghanistan would be better off without the Taliban, and that they’d be the heroes for delivering such scenarios.

One has to wonder, do the key decision makers recruit Hollywood scriptwriters to devise their plans? It could well be the case that an Iraq without Saddam or an Afghanistan without the Taliban would both be better places, but what was clearly not considered was the method of their removal. An invasion by a foreign military force was only ever going to divide the populations, fear of the unknown does terrible things to societies, it brings out the absolute worst in humanity. This was not considered at all, but in all honesty, the situations we find in Iraq and Afghanistan have greatly benefited the US.

I doubt there are any published statistics, but I can guarantee that while America has lost a lot of soldiers ‘fighting for the flag’ it has certainly made billions in profit over the course of these invasions. Remember that America is the largest exporter of arms in the world, what better way to advertise your products than a decade long occupation of a nation with such challenging terrain as Afghanistan and the removal of a notorious Tyrant from one of their biggest enemies? That’s before we even think about the oil contracts handed out to western corporations in the oil-fields of Iraq, there’s that famous map of Iraq, divided into five states: Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP and Total.

So, from the military failings of Vietnam, America has learned that military failings don’t necessarily need to mean general failings. Like all good businesses, they’ve learned that in order to make money they need to stick to what they do best and then exploit the s**t out of it. And credit where credit’s due, they’re pretty good at invading other countries under false pretences.

Hence why I’m so nervous about the rhetoric emerging from the US and the UK on Syria. It’s pretty clear that Syria will be far better off without him in charge, he’s lost his grip. But is any kind of military intervention, be it airstrikes or troops on the ground, really the best way to engineer that? Have we thought this through? On the face of it, Syria is divided into at least three large groupings: Assad Supporters, Rebel Supporters and people that just want the fighting to stop. That third group is actually incomprehensible to Western political leaders and Western media outlets. We’re being force-fed this idea that in Syria, you either support Assad, or you support the rebels. But it’s pretty clear that both sides only have their own interests at heart now. Maybe that wasn’t the case initially, but it certainly is now.

What will happen should either of these two sides emerge victorious? Immediately, the scars of war will inevitably be so severe that the victor will oppress those who side(d) with the defeated. They will be rounded up and punished, that’s pretty much guaranteed and we’ve seen that in Libya and more recently following the military coup in Egypt. At the moment Syria appears to be a horrid place to live in, with continual fighting and shortages of food, water and healthcare. If the West believes that eliminating Assad will resolve these problems and make Syria a better place, they have another thing coming.

They should look to their case studies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember watching US troops tearing down Saddam’s statue in Baghdad in my Sixth-Form common room, my teachers watching on in shock, I was 17 then. Over a decade later, how does Iraq look now? Arguably worse. Any intervention in Syria will be catastrophic, because whilst in Iraq the tension was simmering away beneath the surface prior to the invasion, the tension in Syria is smashing your head in with a hammer.

And that is why I find everything that William Hague says on this matter frankly disgusting. ‘Diplomacy hasn’t worked’. That may well be the case, but if it hasn’t worked it’s probably because the West are s**t at diplomacy, not just because the Syrian factions are unwilling. This conflict started well over two years ago, and always looked to be one that could escalate to devastating effect. Instead of acting at the time, we’ve just watched with casual interest, and only recently has our interest been piqued. Has anyone even tried to get Assad and the FSA leaders in a room together?

For what it’s worth, my position on Syria is that there should be no military intervention whatsoever. We live in a world where support is not given out of the goodness of our hearts any longer, any invading force will undoubtedly want something in return. Imagine your house is on fire, and your neighbour has a hosepipe. You ask him for help and he says: ‘Sure, but only if you give me the deeds to your house.’ You’d be incredulous, but that is what Aid amounts to. It’s not free, it comes at a hefty price. A price that the aidee just can’t afford. But a price that the Americans routinely demand.

I think we should be calling for a ceasefire, not to destabilise Assad or the FSA but to stop any further civilian casualties, to get medical aid (with no strings) out there, to get food aid out there, to actually help those who need it. Not only should we call for this ceasefire, we should actually take action. Speak to Assad, speak to the FSA. Get them in a room, knock their heads together. Why are you cutting off your country’s nose? To spite your own face? It sounds incredibly naive, I know. But what other option is there?

Outsourcing Death

August 15, 2013 at 5:49 pm

Tony Blair, quite rightly, often cops a lot of flak for his over-eagerness to enter into war with our American partners (read Masters) in Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m sure anybody reading this is well aware that the ‘war’ in Iraq was premised on the fact that Saddam Hussein had built up large stores of WMDs and that we’d save the day by bringing democracy to Iraq. The ‘war’ in Afghanistan was premised on the fact that the Taliban regime there harboured terrorists, so we’d rid Afghanistan of these terrorists, bring democracy and make it a better place. Oh, and of course on the complete down-low was the only actual fact:

We’d make sh*t loads of money out of it.

History now tells us that Saddam did not have any WMDs, never mind a stash big enough to pose a threat to the US or even the UK. We have tried to enforce democracy (the irony) in Afghanistan and Iraq, but we’ve completely failed in that respect as nothing’s really changed in either country. We haven’t really gotten rid of any terrorists in Afghanistan, merely made it easier for them to recruit globally. We’ve only succeeded in making Afghanistan and Iraq far more dangerous places than they ever used to be.

One of the main criticisms that faces the likes of Blair, Bush and now Obama is the civilian death toll. We’ll never really know the exact amount, because of the sheer politics involved in counting dead people. The UN and other international agencies of ‘peace’ will always be keen to downplay this number, whereas sources sympathetic to the local cause may be just as keen to exaggerate. Whether these perceptions are accurate or not isn’t really relevant because no one will agree on specifics, what we can agree on though is a sh*t load of innocent people have died as a result of these ‘wars’. The inverted commas are purely placed because these were labelled as wars, but were actually more like occupations by much larger, more technologically, militarily and economically advanced bullies.

Anyway, the point behind this article is to simply state that politicians in the UK have learned some important lessons from our misadventures overseas helping out our masters. Whilst Tony Blair can be said to have given the direct orders that led to the deaths of potentially millions of civilians, orders that he still refuses to acknowledge any regret for, David Cameron cannot be said to have given direct orders to kill anyone. Our PR savvy Prime Minister learnt from Iraq and Afghanistan, that if you want to make s*it loads of money from killing people, you’re probably better off doing it via somebody else.

We have in place a Government now that is happy, no delighted, to sell weapons (or at least Military Tech) to: Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Israel, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Argentina (Bizarrely enough!), Iran, Russia and China. At the same time we have a government who continually condemn or express concern at state violence and oppression of freedoms in the very same countries.

So instead of pledging ourselves to large-scale participation in military occupations around the globe, David  merely supplies the weaponry for repressive regimes to murder and oppress their own citizens. Of course, the good thing about all of this is that the Arms Trade provides the UK with bucket loads of cash and jobs to boost the economy that his government is so desperately failing to fix. So whilst Tony Blair has blood on his hands, David’s outsourced it to somebody else. And he f*cking loves it.

The Blair Issue

June 2, 2013 at 1:10 pm

Late on Saturday night I had the misfortune of reading Tony Blair’s latest offensive on Islam. The MailOnline website had posted an article just before 1am talking of Blair’s ‘Most powerful political intervention since leaving Downing Street’. An interesting description, presumably the Mail correspondent believes Blair has been next to useless in his role as Peace Envoy to the Middle East too?

An hour later the full article was published. The extreme arrogance with which he wrote sickened me to the core. In it he claims he has ‘first-hand experience of what is going on in the Middle East’ and will make his ’100th visit to the Middle East’ this month. He claims to know of Bashar al-Assad’s plan to split Syria in two and is ‘using chemical weapons on a small but deadly scale’, he claims that ‘Al Qaeda is back causing carnage in Iraq’, and ‘Iran continues it’s gruesome meddling’ whilst also ‘Still exporting terror to West’ and are ‘Still intent on getting a Nuclear weapon’.

All of this is exceedingly wonderful insight into the Middle East (and his psyche), but beneath it all lies the inescapable fact that the West has either caused or played a significant role in the general instability over there. All of this insight ignores the fact that it comes from the mind of the man who took us to ‘War’ in Iraq solely on the premise that they had WMDs. Whether Tony lied about WMDs or just plain got it wrong is actually irrelevant for the purposes of my article. Saddam didn’t possess any WMDs, Tony Blair’s credibility in international politics dwindled with each new day of fruitless searches whether he lied or got it wrong.

His opinion on the Middle East is therefore worthless, he has proved he is either incompetent or a liar. He has made almost 100 visits to the Middle East in 6 years of his heart-crushing role of Peace Envoy and what has he achieved? All we know is that he’s developed a fine career advising questionable regimes and giving speeches to questionable corporations. But achieving peace in the Middle East will never appear on his CV.

Tony Blair has the classic White Supremacist ideology coursing through his veins, he is incapable of listening to the people on the ground affected by his reckless politics. Remember how many turned up for the ‘Stop the War’ protests in 2003? Did he listen? No. Tony Blair is single minded in that he is always right. He has never expressed even a modicum of regret on the Iraqi invasion, he still believes it was the right thing to do, he still thinks Iraq is a safer place to live now than it was then. How many civilians died in Iraq last week Tony?

Not only does he refuse to acknowledge his error of judgement, in his article today he refuses to acknowledge the role of the West in causing this instability we currently see in the Middle East. He makes no mention of The USA’s gruesome meddling in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etcetera etcetera. He chooses to ignore western support for totalitarian dictatorships, he refuses to acknowledge that the majority of the current ‘villains’ were at one point funded by us! In fact he claims the Taliban was borne out of the Russian Occupation of Afghanistan but fails completely to mention the role of the Americans.

Tony states that there is a ‘Problem within Islam’ but ‘not with Islam itself’ and I find myself actually agreeing with this up to a point. I would suggest that Islam is a peaceful religion, its adherents struggle to achieve the same goals as any westerners: to provide for their families, to better themselves, to practice their faith freely. The ‘problem within Islam’ he talks of is accurate to some extent, there are people who act in brutish, thuggish, disgusting ways who claim to do so in the name of Islam, in the name of Allah. But let me assure you they are not acting in the name of Islam Tony, they act purely in retaliation and revenge against the west merely using Islam as a cover to legitimise their acts and attract support. These people were created by you, they were created by your predecessors, and their predecessors too.

There are too many people in this world willing to kill and to die doing what they believe to be right. The overwhelming majority of these people make no claims to be Muslim, they wear camouflaged clothing, carry expensive weaponry and drive around in armoured vehicles. They are convinced that what they are doing is right by people like Tony: pen-pushing, money-grabbing, attention-seeking, credit-hogging, self-indulgent, corrupt autocrats.

Tony says that beneath all the troubles in the Middle East and North Africa lies a common thread, he asks us ‘Are we going to continue to ignore this?’ He’s right. There is a common thread: Western Intervention. And this fact has been ignored far too long.

Tony also says ‘The ideology behind the murder of Lee Rigby is profound and dangerous, why don’t we admit it?’

I respond with a question:

When will the West pull our bloodied hands from behind our backs?

It is our ideology that is profound and dangerous. We think we have done no wrong. A casual glance through history would suggest otherwise.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: