Warning: This post was published more than 12 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 12 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
I know that it’s probably poor timing to start ranting about the latest terrible events in Iraq already, but I think that this really needs to be said.
Almost all of the vox-pops and people I’ve spoken to have said that we shouldn’t negotiate with terrorists, even with these potential grim outcomes. That’s a very commendable sentiment, but completely irrelevant. The current situation should not ever have involved either Bush or Blair, let alone left them appearing to need to negotiate with terrorists.
The position of the Iraqi government is clear. They want to release the women in Iraqi prisons, so that the views of all of those Iraqis (and there are more than a few) who think that the imprisonment of women is wrong are represented. Indeed, they see all Iraqis as valid citizens, so that a government can be formed which represents the views of all Iraqis.
The spanner in the works that has directly led to the deaths of two US Citizens, and possibly one British citizen, is George W Bush. The two women are in US custody, supposedly on behalf of the Iraqi government. How sovereign can the Iraqi government be if their wishes are being ignored? Of course, George Bush doesn’t want to be accused of letting Saddam’s friends go. But, crucuially, it isn’t his call. It’s nothing to do with him, and I’m fairly sure that what he is doing breaks international law.
And Tony Blair is left in the middle. Well, actually, I’m not entirely sure of Tony’s stance, but it seems to me that Jack Straw is aware that this situation is incredibly injust, and it’s an arrogant US President that will effectively kill a British citizen.
This isn’t some kind of hidden story. It’s been played out in full on the ‘better’ TV News programmes, and in the broadsheets. But the country doesn’t seem to be getting the message, which suggests that the tabloid newspapers and programmes are over-simplifying the story. Lucky for Blair.
Tony Blair should publically call for President Bush to but out of Iraq’s affairs. But, of course, he would never do that, especially when it’s his good friend’s election year.
Not that Tony’s much better – and this bit’s purely my opinion, and if it’s complete bollocks then that’s my bad – but why has Mr Blair brought up the hunting debate now? Because it’s a very devisive issue, bound to cause protest at his Party Conference. So the news will be full of protestors who support fox-hunting – approximately half of the viewers will disagree with what these protesters are saying, and hence this won’t be nearly as damaging as if Mr Blair had been faced with hoardes of War in Iraq protestors – who would inevitably have grabbed the headlines has it not been for this policy suddenly making a reappearence – with whom the majority of the viewers would sympathise.
Well that’s all been thoroughly depressing. But I did like Charles Kennedy’s speech today. And I move into my new Stocktonite house next week. So it’s not all bad.
Originally posted on The LBSC