*DAMN R6 Forum

Quoted from the BBC World News website:


More than 50 former British diplomats have signed a letter to Tony Blair criticising his Middle East policy.
The 52 ambassadors said it was time for the prime minister to start influencing America's "doomed" policy in the Middle East or stop backing it.
They told Mr Blair they had "watched with deepening concern" as Britain followed the US lead in Iraq and Israel and called for a debate in Parliament.
No 10 said Mr Blair would be replying to the letter in due course.
The spokesman said the prime minister rejected the idea of a "score card" of influence between himself and President Bush.
The diplomats, among them former ambassadors to Baghdad and Tel Aviv, believe their attack is unprecedented in scope and scale.
One of the people behind the letter, former British ambassador to Libya Oliver Miles said: "A number of us felt that our opinion on these two subjects, Iraq and the Arab-Israel problem, were pretty widely shared and we thought that we ought to make them public."
On Iraq he added: ""We do think that through lack of planning and through a misunderstanding, a misreading of the situation, we have got ourselves into an extremely difficult situation."
The prime minister is urged to sway US policy in the Middle East as "a matter of the highest urgency".
"We feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in Parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment," said the letter, sent to Reuters.
The document's co-ordinator Mr Miles said they did not intend to damage Mr Blair politically but simply wanted to make their voice heard.
BBC News Online's World Affairs Correspondent Paul Reynolds said: "The list of names includes many former ambassadors in the Middle East and the publication of the letter shows that their frustration at Iraqi and Middle East policy has broken into the open.
"The views expressed are widely felt by officials in the Foreign Office though they are not shared by the prime minister or the foreign secretary."
The 52 diplomats urged Mr Blair to use his alliance with Mr Bush to exert "real influence as a loyal ally... If that is unacceptable or unwelcome, there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure."
Mr Blair has been a staunch ally to US president George W Bush in pursuing the war in Iraq.
The ambassadors accuse the US-led coalition of having "no effective plan" for Iraq after the war and an apparent disregard for the lives of Iraqi civilians.
They said Mr Blair had "merely waited" for the US to advance a "road map" for peace that had raised expectations of a lasting Israeli-Palestinian settlement.
They condemn Mr Bush's decision to endorse an Israeli plan to retain some settlements in the West Bank as an illegal and one-sided step - and criticise Mr Blair's public support for the move.
"Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land," the diplomats said.
They urged Mr Blair to act urgently to challenge the UK's portrayal as a partner in US policies condemned by the Arab and Muslim world.
Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said the Mr Blair should listen to the advice of the former diplomats.
"This is a most remarkable intervention in the debate about the Middle East from a group of people who are almost certainly the most expert in Britain on the issue," he said.

--end--

The letter Reads as follows:

We the undersigned former British ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials, including some who have long experience of the Middle East and others whose experience is elsewhere, have watched with deepening concern the policies which you have followed on the Arab-Israel problem and Iraq, in close co-operation with the United States.

Following the press conference in Washington at which you and President Bush restated these policies, we feel the time has come to make our anxieties public, in the hope that they will be addressed in Parliament and will lead to a fundamental reassessment.

The decision by the USA, the EU, Russia and the UN to launch a "Road Map" for the settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict raised hopes that the major powers would at last make a determined and collective effort to resolve a problem which, more than any other, has for decades poisoned relations between the West and the Islamic and Arab worlds.

... But the hopes were ill-founded. Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence.

Britain and the other sponsors of the Road Map merely waited on American leadership, but waited in vain.

Worse was to come. After all those wasted months, the international community has now been confronted with the announcement by Ariel Sharon and President Bush of new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood.

Our dismay at this backward step is heightened by the fact that you yourself seem to have endorsed it, abandoning the principles which for nearly four decades have guided international efforts to restore peace in the Holy Land and which have been the basis for such successes as those efforts have produced.

This abandonment of principle comes at a time when rightly or wrongly we are portrayed throughout the Arab and Muslim world as partners in an illegal and brutal occupation in Iraq.

The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement.

All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the Coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case.

To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful.

Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region.

... The military actions of the Coalition forces must be guided by political objectives and by the requirements of the Iraq theatre itself, not by criteria remote from them.

It is not good enough to say that the use of force is a matter for local commanders.

Heavy weapons unsuited to the task in hand, inflammatory language, the current confrontations in Najaf and Falluja, all these have built up rather than isolated the opposition.

... We share your view that the British government has an interest in working as closely as possible with the United States on both these related issues, and in exerting real influence as a loyal ally.

We believe that the need for such influence is now a matter of the highest urgency.

If that is unacceptable or unwelcome there is no case for supporting policies which are doomed to failure.

The signatories are: Brian Barder; Paul Bergne; John Birch; David Blatherwick; Graham Boyce; Julian Bullard; Juliet Campbell; Bryan Cartledge; Terence Clark; David Colvin; Francis Cornish; James Craig; Brian Crowe; Basil Eastwood; Stephen Egerton; William Fullerton; Dick Fyjis-Walker; Marrack Goulding; John Graham; Andrew Green; Vic Henderson; Peter Hinchcliffe; Brian Hitch; Archie Lamb and David Logan.

Also: Christopher Long; Ivor Lucas; Ian McCluney; Maureen MacGlashan; Philip McLean; Christopher MacRae; Oliver Miles; Martin Morland; Keith Morris; Richard Muir; Alan Munro; Stephen Nash; Robin O'Neill; Andrew Palmer; Bill Quantrill; David Ratford; Tom Richardson; Andrew Stuart; David Tatham; Crispin Tickell; Derek Tonkin; Charles Treadwell; Hugh Tunnell; Jeremy Varcoe; Hooky Walker; Michael Weir and Alan White.

--end--

A good thing you care, BFG....but these posts are tooooo daaaaamn loooong to read.......took me about an hour to read and understand what you could have said with a few lines....


which is: Blair sucks....GET HIM OUT OF HERE....right?

yeah basically... Blair is an idiot, what the hell is he doing supporting the terrorist chimpanzee known as George Dubbya, and wtf is he doing agreeing with bush's crazy ass forign policy which is going to end up with more violence in the middle east (particually the israeli-palistinian conflict)

in conlusion... bush is a retard, blair is a retard for having anything to do with bush, between them they are fucking the world up... end of thingy - oh yes, thankgod the guys who wrote this letter wrote it, they are so right, and these guys know what they are talking about .

Sorry to have to tell you this, but neither you, nor those people who wrote this letter, know what the hell they are talking about.

lol yeah don't tell me BS,  GS, becasue your one of gods children and we will all be judged and it will be to late then for we are mear infidels blah blah blah....

Yeah and hell of course, what do a group ambassadors, high commissioners, governors and senior international officials know, they should all be listening to a rightwing christian fundamentalist gun toting maniac who's answer to the worlds problems is to go shoot somthing/somebody.

....silly me

Well, when they are from the liberal side of your government, not much.

First off, Blair is/was a liberal in the UK government. Blair is part of the Labour Party which is in favour of increasing the prevelence and effectivness social programs and other state services. The Labour party describe themselves as a "democratic socialist party." Much like Schroeder's party in Germany. If I am not mistaken the Labour Party could be comparative to the DNC in the United States in that it seeks to increase social welfare. To put it bluntly, Blair is politicaly similar to Clinton.

Secondly, there were a few British officials from Thatcher's Tory party that signed that letter, not to mention that members on both sides of parliment are against and for this war.

(I knew Blair was a liberal....how else could you explain him liking Clinton so much during the 90's?)

It does not matter who is President of the United States, Blair will still be their bitch.

No offence to the UK or anything, but your Prime Minister is a tool.

I'm just glad he is America's tool....and not Saddam's or Bin Laden's (unlike some French Presidents I know).

Didnt know france had more than one president :o

They don't, but they have had more than one President who was anti-American (I can think of about 4 right off the bat).

Yeah...and we saved all your guys asses in WWII so you should be grateful....lol jk

lol gabe


And somtimes u wonder why?

As i recall, a neo-nazi almost got elected in France this last election....got something like 20% of the vote... He was also anti-American and anti-Israeli.

Very true, and the mother f*cker was over here the other day talking to those right wing facists who call themselves the BNP... disgusting

Wow...there is actually an agreement here. I too spit in that direction.

I guess its just a great reminder to use your privilidge living in a democracy, and to go out and vote. This is what happens if you let democracy sink into insignificance... for democracy to survive people must vote!!

... and thank god the french did and He lost!

I hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of American's liked Clinton. In fact, the vast majority of the world liked Clinton. "Rockstart President" comes to mind ... (all double entandras intended).

Btw, did anyone get any info on what Bush, erm, Cheny actually had Bush say today before the 911 Comis?

No, I think they are saying that it was a private meeting and therefore will not be going into detail about it.

Dude, you are living in another world if you think the vast majority of American's liked Clinton.  That is as far from the truth as anything I have ever read.  Maybe the vast majority of LIBERALS liked Clinton.....but I hate to break it to YOU, most Americans are NOT liberals.

From '98

"The Monitor/TIPP poll found that Clinton's overall approval rating stands at 57 percent, while 40 percent disapprove of the job he is doing. Three percent were undecided."

http://www.tipponline.com/articles/97_99/csm/Mo100998.htm (http://www.tipponline.com/articles/97_99/csm/Mo100998.htm)

From '99 (the height of the Repub smear job)

"But even so, Clinton's personal favorability rating dropped notably, from 59% in September to 48% in the latest survey, as Americans appeared to be drawing a distinction between job performance and the president's personal character. His unfavorability rating increased to 45% from 35%. Half feel he has the honesty and integrity to be president, whereas 41% suggest he does not."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/timespoll/la-980125internpoll,0,3784221.story?coll=la-news-times_poll-nation (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/timespoll/la-980125internpoll,0,3784221.story?coll=la-news-times_poll-nation)

Here's a gaff from Infoplease, and online Encyclopedia:

"Paradoxically, however, in spite of the scandalous outcome of events, Clinton's overall popularity among Americans remained high. The country seemed willing to ignore his weaknesses in character, much as they did in the 1992 elections, as long as the economy was good, his policies were popular, and the United States remained strong abroad"

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760626.html (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760626.html)

And the kicker from USA Today, 5/26/2003:
Respect for Clinton rebounds among Americans

"Bill Clinton now ranks as this nation's third best chief executive, according to a recent CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

Only Abraham Lincoln (chosen by 15%) and John F. Kennedy (13%) finished ahead of Clinton (11%) in the April poll, which asked Americans who was "the greatest" president. George W. Bush managed to tie Clinton for third place."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2003-05-26-wickham_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2003-05-26-wickham_x.htm)


And here are Bush's current numbers:
 http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm)
Do  you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
46% approve, 47% don't approve, 8% don't know

 http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm)
Is your opinion of George W. Bush  favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about George W.  Bush yet to have an opinion?

Fav 38%, unFav 43%, undecided 18%


just some numbers ....

Even during Clinton's darkest days he still had a hell of a lot of popularity, both personally and in his policies. As for Bush ....

His current number are:

"According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has dropped to 43 percent, down from 56 percent in mid-January. While these numbers can change quite rapidly, the most alarming figure is that only 40 percent of Americans approve of the way the Bush administration is handling the conflict in Iraq, with 53 percent outright disapproving. This number has dropped significantly since January lending credence to the theory that the mounting attacks against primarily U.S. forces have disillusioned the U.S. population."

http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=157&language_id=1 (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=157&language_id=1)

Bush's numbers are lower now than Bill during the Monica scandel and impeachment. Sorry to break it to YOU GS, but most Americans aren't fundamentalists, conservatives,  or right-wingers - they're MODERATES.  ;)

One other thing: Clinton's numbers staid consistant over 8 years, only dipping in '98-'99, unlike Bush's which were seriously inflated by 911. We're now seeing the real Bush numbers, rather than the "any port in a storm" numbers.

GS, it also depends on where you live. I am sure if I talked to people in Biloxi, Mississippi (or wherever it is you live in that state) that the vast majority are not too fond of Clinton. However, if you go on the streets of Austin, Texas or any other urban portion of our nation you will find that many people approved of the job Clinton did.

HELLO ALL IDIOTS WHO EVIDENTLY CAN NOT READ:

I said "LIKED", not "approved of his job performance."  There is a BIG difference.  Hell, that guy was so immoral that most people had to rush to the bathroom to wash the filth off after they shook his hand (ME being one of those people, by the way).  The military fucking HATED HIS GUTS.  Christians couldn't stand him.  And although the majority of Americans (that were polled....hardly proof to me) thought he performed his job to their satisfaction, they did not "LIKE" him.

Learn to read.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

Omg He's got a gun!  Run for your lives!  :o

Well I am a christian and I thought he was a good president.

psst... (Cossak... hide dude)

EXACTLY!  "Thought he was a good president."  That's my point.  A lot of people "thought he was a good president", however, that is not what I'm talking about.....I'm talking about how many people actually "LIKED" him, like as a person.  I think John F. Kennedy was a great President....but hell, he was just as immoral as Bill Clinton (at least JFK actually banged a few women in the White House....Bill Clinton wasn't nearly the playboy he was).  So while I think JFK was a good President, I do not "like" him much as a person because of all the immorality in his life (but at least he really was a war hero, quite unlike Bill Clinton....so JFK gets extra points there).

By the way, here is the tribute page I made for JFK several years ago:

 John F. Kennedy  (http://www.military.com/HomePage/UserCreatedTributePage/0,10980,715150,00.html)

GS, do you realize how silly your point is? How many people can actually spend time with and get to know a president before they decide if they "like" him or not? Very few. And if you just read the papers, what do they report? Everything negative, of course. You can't judge a person by reading about them in the papers. The only way to get to know them is to spend time with them. But I will grant you that his morals were twisted and disagreeable.

And I hate to break it to you, but most Americans are NOT conservatives. If you look at the last presidential election (Which Al gore won the popular vote in, by the way. Yea, that means a MAJORITY voted for him.) everything hinged on ONE voting district in ONE state. I'd say that shows a pretty much 50/50 split.

My grandparents are Catholic. Just about as Catholic as them come. And you know what? They're against Bush and against the war. Funny how that works. My best friend is the biggest bible thumping redneck you will ever meet. It took about fifteen minutes for me to convince him with straight facts and quotes that bush is a moron.

But he's not a moron. He's a puppet.

that wouldn't be the same state as that inpartial brother of George presided? A one mr Jeb bush? ...

I never said the majority of Americans are conservatives.  I simply said that the majority of Americans ARE NOT LIBERALS.  Another big difference that you guys who can not read didn't get.  Also, when you are talking about majorities in voting, you also have to understand that only a majority of the PEOPLE WHO VOTED, voted for that person.  Not everyone who can vote, does vote.  Which is a really bad problem in this country.

The majority of Americans would likely self-identify as moderates with a political affiliation. Sadlly, the Republican party has no room for moderates anymore.

 And alas not just a problem in the US... here as well as many other countries. daft isn't it we take for granted somthing that so many people die fighting for ... the ability to have a voice in the politics of your country...

OMG....I just read two posts in a row (From Sixhits and BFG) that I actually agree with.

It's the end of the fucking world.

***GhostSniper runs for his bomb shelter....

I thought you wanted the world to end ...

Of course I don't want the world to end.....yet.  There are still so many things in life I havn't done:

1.  Torture Typhy to Death.

2.  Bitch-Slap VooDoo

3.  Live Long Enough to let BFG See the Error in his Ways

4.  See Season 4 of Alias

5.  See Star Wars Episode III

6.  Ummmm....did I mention Torture Typhy to Death?

Well ghost... shocking isn't it!!

I don't think thats going to happen very often...

     You're looking forward to Episode III? Oh Ghost, how I pity you.

Well, by looking at your age, Loth (25), I can see that you did not watch Episode IV A New Hope at the movies the day it came out.  Also, it probably was not the first movie you ever saw.  I, however, did watch Star Wars the day it came out in 1977, and it was the very first movie I ever saw.

Also, my daughter was born about 2 weeks before Episode I The Phantom Menace came out in 1999.....so needless to say that was the very first movie she ever saw (although she is too young to remember, we play the DVD all the time for her).

So yes, I am looking forward to Episode III.

     Let me put it this way: I was looking forward to Episode I. I was hoping that Episode II would wash the bad taste of I out of my mouth. Episode III is hopeless.

Then don't go see it.  Hell, we already know how it all ends anyway.

     Nah, I'm still going to see it. There's going to be at least one $9 action sequence with which I can justify the cost of the movie.

I just hope Skywalker doesn't give in to the darkside.