Prime Minster Tony Blair is courting with the devil

**Freddie** · November 14, 2006, 05:45 PM

Tony Blair wants to engage Iran and Syria in Iraq

Read the article and let us know your thoughts.

Personally I think this is either the best idea since sliced bread or potential one that has dyer consequences for Iraq. I’m leaning towards the latter, why would we start engaging known enemies of the west into a debacle caused entirely by the US and rest of coalition?

I have no doubt that Iran would be able to help quell the Shiite militia and death squads, however there involvement would just mean Sunnis would have more reason to turn to al-quadea to help combat growing sectarian violence, which would be flamed by Iranian clerics and no doubt by similar extremist Sunni clerics.

This comes across as a desperate measure to counter a growing desperate situation, when what we really need is more troops to occupy the town that the militias do. Sadly or Mr Blair he is lame duck PM, he ahs been caught out lying to us over Iraq and doesn’t have the political muscle to persuade Bush or his own party to send extra reinforcements to Iraq. It would appear then Tony Blair is looking to dance with the devil to try and rescue any creditability he has left form his poor premiership, sadly I can only see this working at the expense of the Iraqi people.

**mike^_^** · November 14, 2006, 07:03 PM

heh, the title had me confused. I thought for sure this was more news of his morning ritual "channeling" the light

**Bovril** · November 14, 2006, 07:17 PM

I can certainly see that diplomacy in this area could have positive benefits. Some sort of compromise between 'the west' and Iran and Syria could feasably result in less intervention in Iraqi politics by all parties, or some degree of co-operation, which might help contribute towards an peaceful solution to the violence, verging on civil war, in Iraq. I certainly hope so anyway. To me diplomacy is allways as positive step, and the Iraq conflict is one of the areas of global geo-politics that is most in need of diplomacy at pressent.

**SbSdude** · November 14, 2006, 07:18 PM

Seeing as self-determination is off the agenda, and non-intervention is DEFINITELY out tha' winda', yeah why not. Invite North Korea along to learn a valuable lesson in feckless insurgency administration (political) and you have your bonafide Triumvirate of Evil all in one place. Then Nuke.

Blair is really an evil genius.

It's an outlandish idea and will never be realised.

**Freddie** · November 15, 2006, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by mike^_^

heh, the title had me confused. I thought for sure this was more news of his morning ritual "channeling" the light

If you took one look at his wife, you would think that as well.

The bottom line is Blair is playing with fire here, I can only see this back coming back to bite us in the back side latter on, makeing packs like this always does.

**Your Lame Sister** · November 15, 2006, 03:03 PM

Using iran and syria to stabilise iraq is like using rats to stop plagues. if these two fanatica l states were allowed to interfere in iraq, we would have a new sadaam, only this time he will be shiite fanatic instead of a pragmatic and opprotunist dictator.

**bigfootedfred** · November 15, 2006, 04:19 PM

i have to say i read thread title and thought
'well yeah...whats new, hes been doing that for like 4,5 years now'.

anyway, To save myself the headache of green text. i bow out here.

**Tom Paine** · November 15, 2006, 04:21 PM

I rather liked the Independent's take on it; unluckily the Leader is subscription only but here's the main article:http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1981733.ece
Basically we are now left with no choice but to try to involve our enemies, and axis of evil nations into the mess, in this whole affair, or even debacle...

Independent comment article: http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...cle1981710.ece
And finally the Independent analysis of what its going to mean for American foreign policy if it comes off: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle1981732.ece

**Lavastein** · November 15, 2006, 05:39 PM

using iran and syria is not only a way to enhance the war, but leave the west open for an oil embargo and more terrorism. thats most of the middle east against us. Does Blair not realise this?

**Tom Paine** · November 15, 2006, 05:42 PM

So what's his alternatives, please?

**Lavastein** · November 15, 2006, 06:07 PM

the alternative is to do what needs to be done and that is to do far more damage to the enemy and the only way to do that is to be more aggresive. Use the bombers to blast their strong holds go on the offensive and attack their bases. we know where they sleep ad eat. The only thing is we need to figure out a way to deal with civies. i understand that my idea sounds retarded but what the hell can we do now? allowing iran and syria to help is not an option. If we leave now, we may risk terrorists to come to power.

**pannonian** · November 15, 2006, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Lavastein

the alternative is to do what needs to be done and that is to do far more damage to the enemy and the only way to do that is to be more aggresive. Use the bombers to blast their strong holds go on the offensive and attack their bases. we know where they sleep ad eat. The only thing is we need to figure out a way to deal with civies. i understand that my idea sounds retarded but what the hell can we do now? allowing iran and syria to help is not an option. If we leave now, we may risk terrorists to come to power.

Before you do that let us Brits clear out of Iraq first. Once we're out of the way, you can do whatever you like to the Iraqis. We've been hit already as a result of Iraq, we have no desire to mire ourselves any deeper, especially since we were sceptical of the whole venture from the start.

**Freddie** · November 16, 2006, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Lavastein

the alternative is to do what needs to be done and that is to do far more damage to the enemy and the only way to do that is to be more aggresive. Use the bombers to blast their strong holds go on the offensive and attack their bases. we know where they sleep ad eat. The only thing is we need to figure out a way to deal with civies. i understand that my idea sounds retarded but what the hell can we do now? allowing iran and syria to help is not an option. If we leave now, we may risk terrorists to come to power.

Killing more insurgents is not the answer. What we need is more troops in Iraq to plug the holes that the current forces can't fill, as at the moment the insurgents are everywhere the coalition isn't. For example you only have to look at the Green zone in Baghdad, the insurgents can't attack anything inside that greenzone because it's heavily sealed off, if we could do the same across Iraq using not only extra coalition forces but Iraqi army forces eventually you will be able to force the hand of leaders of the insurgents to come to the peace table.

**Bovril** · November 15, 2006, 08:35 PM

Oh Lord. This debate is about to descend into the proto-typical "terror" VS. "Democracy" ideological farce. Its become clear that the US and UK are more interested in establishing a friend in the Iraqi premiership than an democratically ellected leader. This was of course allways the plan, and was only disturbed by the unexpectedly vast anti-war movement. I expect to see an old school pro-western dictator (with psuedo-democratic credentials) in Iraq,m of the type that has become the default solution of the U.S.'s middle east policy (c.f. Musharaf, the Saudis, Shah Reza of Iran, Sukano, Suharto, etc.) be emplaced with the excuse being that we need a strongman to prevent terrorism. Ironically, there was no anti-western terrorist movements in Iraq during Saddam's reign, but after the invasion anti-western terrorist groups are common.

It seems to me that terrorism is actually neither here nor there when it comes to the foreign policy aganeda of the neo-liberal U.S. elites. At best it is an excuse to invade middle eastern countries. The plan to invade Iraq existed not only before 9/11 but before Bush came to power, as is evidenced by the documentary record of the 'Project For The New American Century'. It was known well before the invasion of Iraq that such an expodition would vastly increase the support for and resources of anti-western terror groups (c.f. reports conducted by M.I.5. and the C.I.A.) but the invasion went ahead for economic and political reasons which basically amounted to the enrichment of the elites of the U.S. and U.K. at the expense of the citizens of Iraq and the soldiers of all three coutries involved.

**PacSubCom** · November 16, 2006, 09:02 AM

So you want to heavily seal off Iraq - from Iraq? Splendid idea.

**Freddie** · November 16, 2006, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by PacSubCom

So you want to heavily seal off Iraq - from Iraq? Splendid idea.

I'm not talking about sealing of Iraq from Iraq, if look at the trends, news reports, battles and take account the experiences from the troops, you will see that they just can't be everywhere at the same time. This is when trying to counter the terrorists becomes hard because the insurgents camp out where the military isn't present.