Blair's torture legacy; the deal in the desert laid bare

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...tain-dear.html

Blair’s torture legacy will cost Britain dear

The sickeningly cosy relationship between the Tony Blair government and the murderous Gaddafi regime has long been a stain on Britain’s conscience. As this paper has consistently argued, the former Prime Minister was desperate for oil contracts and, in order to secure them, abandoned any remaining claim to be running an ‘ethical foreign policy’. But, even given all we already know about the Machiavellian antics of this most slippery politician, the documents being unearthed in the ransacked offices of Gaddafi’s former torturer-in-chief, Musa Kusa, are deeply shocking.

Greased palms: Former Prime Minister Tony Blair was desperate to secure lucrative oil contracts with the Gaddafi regime

Indeed, they appear to provide evidence that, for all the carefully-worded denials, Britain’s security services, under Mr Blair, were complicit in the rendition of suspects to face certain torture overseas. What other conclusion can be drawn from documents detailing how Abdel Hakim Belhaj - today, in a bitter irony, a senior rebel commander - was handed to Kusa’s thugs on the basis of intelligence provided by our security services?

MI6’s Sir Mark Allen (who now works for BP, which secured lucrative oil contracts in Libya ) even apparently wrote to Kusa obsequiously saying that rendering Belhaj was ‘the least we could do for you’. Now, in a development which would be farcical if it were not so appalling, Belhaj may sue the UK for £1million compensation, thus punishing the Cameron government, which helped to topple Gaddafi, for the crimes of its predecessors. The Prime Minister must also be wondering how warm his relationship with the new rebel government will be, given the UK’s emerging role in the ill-treatment of one of its senior figures. Ultimately, the task of establishing the full extent of the Blair government’s complicity in torture rests with Sir Peter Gibson’s inquiry, which must not allow ex-ministers - as Jack Straw attempted yesterday - risibly to claim they were unaware of what MI6 was doing. But, whatever Sir Peter concludes, one thing is certain: Mr Blair’s degrading relationship with Gaddafi will cost this country dear for years to come.

Oh dear oh dear. Could it be true? true that what I said (and many others) that when we go around the world invading foreign countries who pose no threat to us and have never attacked us, that the reasons given 'for the people' is complete rubbish and shouldn't be believed by any rational person? as now that we've found out, the previous government (not that the identical present government wouldn't have done the same) handed dissidents over to the Gaddafi regime - at the same time it was cuddling upto the Gaddafi regime, we were invading Iraq and Afghanistan to 'free the people'.

The exact same applies right now, we're in Libya 'to protect the people' yet at the same time we are best of friends with the awful regimes of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen among many others.

Thoughts? is anybody going to try and put across the argument that we invade to help the people?

[Catzsy]

You cannot say that anybody was 'best of friends' with Libya. Sometimes negotiation/diplomacy is the only way and it has happened through out history with qustionable usually quite insane people and you should applaud him on the fact that he persuaded him to give up 100 tons of chemical weapons and his wmd programme. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3335965.stm. Can you imagine what might have happened if he had not? He is not the only leader to have met him either - there are loads of others including Obama, Belosconi, Mandela etc etc. Do you feel the same way about Margaret Thatcher's even closer relationship with Pinochet? As far as rendition is concerned - this sounds ugly and I await further developments on this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You cannot say that anybody was 'best of friends' with Libya. Sometimes negotiation/diplomacy is the only way and it has happened through out history with qustionable usually quite insane people and you should applaud him on the fact that he persuaded him to give up 100 tons of chemical weapons and his wmd programme. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3335965.stm. Can you imagine what might have happened if he had not? He is not the only leader to have met him either - there are loads of others including Obama, Belosconi, Mandela etc etc. Do you feel the same way about Margaret Thatcher's even closer relationship with Pinochet? As far as rendition is concerned - this sounds ugly and I await further developments on this.

Mrs. Thatcher didn't go around the world involving herself in liberal interventionalist wars, had she done so she would be just as bad. As for Gaddafi's chemical weapons programme, why didn't the same apply to Iraq? or was it simply the case (as any rational person knew at the time) that the WMD story was simply an excuse to get us into a war by using fear.

We should trade freely with all of these nations and have relations with every single nation, but keep out of their affairs.

you should applaud him on the fact that he persuaded him to give up 100 tons of chemical weapons and his wmd programme.

Whilst at the same time invading foreign countries based on a lie/the idea of 'ridding the people of evil nasty dictators' yet was handing over people to the Gaddafi regime? the same applies with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen and all the countless others - only if you are anti-western are you under threat of invasion, if pro-western you can take pictures with the Prime Minister and come to Downing Street/the White House.

[Catzsy]

Mrs. Thatcher didn't go around the world involving herself in liberal interventionalist wars, had she done so she would be just as bad. As for Gaddafi's chemical weapons programme, why didn't the same apply to Iraq? or was it simply the case (as any rational person knew at the time) that the WMD story was simply an excuse to get us into a war by using fear.

We should trade freely with all of these nations and have relations with every single nation, but keep out of their affairs.

What about my comment on Mrs Thatcher's relationship with Pinochet? Any comment on that?
We don't know for sure about WMD in Iraq yet - when the inquiry comes up with a verdict I will comment but I do not think that Libya was subject to numerous UN sanctions as Iraq were at that time. Neither was there any proof that Geddafi used them unlike Hussein who killed 50,000 Kurds using chemical weapons. That is an undeniable truth.

[-:Undertaker:-]

What about my comment on Mrs Thatcher's relationship with Pinochet? Any comment on that?

I don't know what the obsession with the Thatcher-Pinochet thing is, especially when i've already made the point that at least she wasn't a hypocrite as she didn't go around invading some regimes under the pretence of 'liberation' whilst cosying upto others (Major, Blair, Brown Cameron). As I said earlier, I think we should trade freely and have open relations with every single nation on this planet along with keeping out of their internal affairs and foreign entanglements.

As for my opinions on the regime itself (one of the only ever right-wing regimes in history I must add), whilst a brutal and harsh regime I think it did a lot of good for Chile in some aspects as Chile is the only OECD (developed) country in South America along with the regime ending peacefully - political deaths amounted to far far less than those of average socialist regimes such as the classic examples of National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union, China under Mao, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba and including recent examples of socialist regimes such as Libya, Iraq under Saddam, North Korea, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen.

Was she right to have relations with Chile? absolutely. Are we right today to have relations with Gaddafi among others? certainly so, but lets not pick and choose which regimes to cosy upto whilst at the same time invading others under the pretend excuse of 'saving the people' - its complete and utter tosh.

We don't know for sure about WMD in Iraq yet - when the inquiry comes up with a verdict I will comment but I do not think that Libya was subject to numerous UN sanctions as Iraq were at that time. Neither was there any proof that Geddafi used them

Can I ask, lets say that Iraq did have nuclear weapons/Iran acquired them - why is this our business?

unlike Hussein who killed 50,000 Kurds using chemical weapons. That is an undeniable truth.

But Gaddafi simply killed many in underground prison cells - all you are doing is arguing over a game of numbers coupled with methods of killing political prisoners. In China right now many remain (estimated upto a million some say) in political prisoner camps with heavens knows what is going on just as in North Korea and many other regimes across the world - yet we cuddle upto China, Saudi Arabia and others even supplying some of them with weapons.

What you really need to ask yourself is, is this really about 'saving the people'? - history says no.

[Catzsy]

I don't know what the obsession with the Thatcher-Pinochet thing is, especially when i've already made the point that at least she wasn't a hypocrite as she didn't go around invading some regimes under the pretence of 'liberation' whilst cosying upto others (Major, Blair, Brown Cameron). As I said earlier, I think we should trade freely and have open relations with every single nation on this planet along with keeping out of their internal affairs and foreign entanglements.

As for my opinions on the regime itself (one of the only ever right-wing regimes in history I must add), whilst a brutal and harsh regime I think it did a lot of good for Chile in some aspects as Chile is the only OECD (developed) country in South America along with the regime ending peacefully - political deaths amounted to far far less than those of average socialist regimes such as the classic examples of National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union, China under Mao, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba and including recent examples of socialist regimes such as Libya, Iraq under Saddam, North Korea, Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen.

Was she right to have relations with Chile? absolutely. Are we right today to have relations with Gaddafi among others? certainly so, but lets not pick and choose which regimes to cosy upto whilst at the same time invading others under the pretend excuse of 'saving the people' - its complete and utter tosh.



Can I ask, lets say that Iraq did have nuclear weapons/Iran acquired them - why is this our business?



But Gaddafi simply killed many in underground prison cells - all you are doing is arguing over a game of numbers coupled with methods of killing political prisoners. In China right now many remain (estimated upto a million some say) in political prisoner camps with heavens knows what is going on just as in North Korea and many other regimes across the world - yet we cuddle upto China, Saudi Arabia and others even supplying some of them with weapons.

What you really need to ask yourself is, is this really about 'saving the people'? - history says no.

Dan when a country has nuclear weapons and is lead by a unstable man like Hussein or Gedaffi the World and not just the person you constantly villify are bound to be concerned and don't forget he was subject to many, many, sanctions via the UN and totally disregarded them. That is what the UN is for. As far as I know nothing has been proved against Gedaffi but I am open to persuasion if you have any facts on that. As I said before politicians do cosy up but they all do it. I agree about all the the other countries you mention and their problems with human rights but at least something has been done about some dictatorships for the benefit of the people there. What would you have done - nothing at all if you could not deal with the whole lot at once? The world is not fair and never will be or we would not have millions starving in Africa.

[Showder]

All I can say is Blair is bad?
Its my perspective.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan when a country has nuclear weapons and is lead by a unstable man like Hussein or Gedaffi the World and not just the person you constantly villify are bound to be concerned and don't forget he was subject to many, many, sanctions via the UN and totally disregarded them.

Unstable? then what were we doing selling both of these regimes weapons along with supplying them with money and support for decades upon decades? the same for the Taliban in Afghanistan - where did these 'unstable' men get their weapons from? from us! you arm and support some unstable dictators to oust another, and then when you threaten the dictators who helped you earlier on you are suprised that they use those weapons against you. As for Iran being unstable, how are they unstable? if the west had invaded two countries situated right next door to you (Iraq and Afghanistan), if the west had constantly meddled in your affairs for decades (see the overthrow of the government and installation of the Shah) - wouldn't you be after nuclear weapons?

The country of Iran, a country with currently zero nuclear weapons along with being a country which has not invaded any country surrounding it or on the other side of the world is unstable - then what does that make us and the west in general who go around the world overthrowing governments?

That is what the UN is for. As far as I know nothing has been proved against Gedaffi but I am open to persuasion if you have any facts on that. As I said before politicians do cosy up but they all do it. I agree about all the the other countries you mention and their problems with human rights but at least something has been done about some dictatorships for the benefit of the people there. What would you have done - nothing at all if you could not deal with the whole lot at once? The world is not fair and never will be or we would not have millions starving in Africa.

This attitude directly leads to countries such as Iran wanting to develop nuclear weapons - if you've noticed, we only pick on or 'liberate' the people trapped under regimes which have virtually no armies, no airforces and no navy or missile capabilities - yet only earlier on you were complaining about Iran wanting nuclear weapons. Err hello? ask yourself whats driving Iran to acquire nuclear weapons in the first place.

Because as Iran has rightly concluded, that if it is capable of giving us a bloody nose then we won't dare touch them.

As I said before politicians do cosy up but they all do it.

Well actually there's various examples of those who advocate non-interventionalism, old pre-1900 British foreign policy, old American foreign policy, Switzerland today and Congressman Ron Paul. But as for the Iraq war, I think you'll find most people around the world (and a considerable number of countries themselves) opposed the invasion of Iraq - not to add that if we'd have known we were being told lies about WMD in Iraq that figure would have been much much higher.

[Catzsy]

Unstable? then what were we doing selling both of these regimes weapons along with supplying them with money and support for decades upon decades? the same for the Taliban in Afghanistan - where did these 'unstable' men get their weapons from? from us! you arm and support some unstable dictators to oust another, and then when you threaten the dictators who helped you earlier on you are suprised that they use those weapons against you. As for Iran being unstable, how are they unstable? if the west had invaded two countries situated right next door to you (Iraq and Afghanistan), if the west had constantly meddled in your affairs for decades (see the overthrow of the government and installation of the Shah) - wouldn't you be after nuclear weapons?

The country of Iran, a country with currently zero nuclear weapons along with being a country which has not invaded any country surrounding it or on the other side of the world is unstable - then what does that make us and the west in general who go around the world overthrowing governments?



This attitude directly leads to countries such as Iran wanting to develop nuclear weapons - if you've noticed, we only pick on or 'liberate' the people trapped under regimes which have virtually no armies, no airforces and no navy or missile capabilities - yet only earlier on you were complaining about Iran wanting nuclear weapons. Err hello? ask yourself whats driving Iran to acquire nuclear weapons in the first place.

Because as Iran has rightly concluded, that if it is capable of giving us a bloody nose then we won't dare touch them.



Well actually there's various examples of those who advocate non-interventionalism, old pre-1900 British foreign policy, old American foreign policy, Switzerland today and Congressman Ron Paul. But as for the Iraq war, I think you'll find most people around the world (and a considerable number of countries themselves) opposed the invasion of Iraq - not to add that if we'd have known we were being told lies about WMD in Iraq that figure would have been much much higher.

The UN supported it - end of!

[-:Undertaker:-]

The UN supported it - end of!

What a thumping reply given to all the facts and uncomfortable truths I have laid out.

Whilst you continue to bang the drum of war without understanding why Iran and other nations act like they do, including Al-Qaeda, then the cycle will be never ending and their hatred for us will only intensify. As i'm about to do another thread on this topic I won't go into it much here, but its interesting that the reasons Osama Bin Laden has given for his attacks on the United States are because of the foreign policy you advocate.

I would advise you to read into the history of Iran and you'll see why it is today a Islamic Republic reactionary state thats is fearful of the west.