Blair on Bush payroll ?

[nino_savatte]

Time to get your head out of the clouds and smell the roses I think.

This doesn't work. It would work better if you substituted the words "the clouds" for "your arse".

 

[CyberRose]

Blair is not and never has been a "diplomat".

Ok whatever

Rubbish. You're no great debater either, chum;

Never said I was. I said I was better than you. See, I just proved it now

I shall put this question to you once more: how does Blair's reluctance to condemn Israel's bombing of Lebanon stand him in good stead with the Palestinians? Furthermore, how can it be seen as anything less than tacit support for Israel's collective punishment of the Lebanese people?

In your own time, chum.

I don't think it would put him in good stead with the Palestinians. But my point all along is that as I believe it is Israel that needs to stop doing what they are doing in order for peace to have a chance, then currying favour with the Palestinians is not needed.

Basically, the way to peace is to prevent that side which you believe to be an obsticle to peace, from being an obsticle. Like I have said time and time again, Israel is the one for me that is the major obsticle to peace (for reasons we need not get bogged down with), and therefore, someone needs to convince Israel to stop. It cannot be America for domestic reasons, nor can it be the EU who are looked on suspiciously by Israel. Blair can be the middle man.

However, the fact that you seem to think that it is not Israel that needs influencing, but the Palestinians, suggests you see the Palestinians as the major obsticle to peace, and for any peace initiative to work, it is the Palestinians that must stop opposing peace. I know that's not what you think, but that is effectively what you are saying when you continue this line of questioning. Understand?

 

[CyberRose]

This doesn't work. It would work better if you substituted the words "the clouds" for "your arse".

Ok it's time to get your head out of your arse

 

[nino_savatte]

What I am saying is that a basic understanding of the domestic pressures faced by a US President should give you enough explanation as to why they are powerless (and therefore in the eyes of people like you "unwilling") to do anything about Israel. Which is why someone like Blair, who is not effected by those constraints, but enjoys influence in Israel, should be in a better position to help matters.

That sounds like a load of auld codswallop. All US Presidents, since Johnson have been quite closely involved in the affairs of the ME. It has forged an ever closer relationship with Israel, in particular over those years. However, you continue to overlook the real issue here: namely that of British role in the ME since 1917 and the betrayal of the Arabs in the period afterwards. Then there's Bush's choice of Blair as envoye speciale and add to this Blair's reluctance to condemn Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon. The view from the Arab (for want of a better word) perspective is going to be what? Are you seriously telling me that the Arab world is going to se Blair as some sort of peacemaker? ROTFLMAO!!!

 

[nino_savatte]

Ok it's time to get your head out of your arse

You're too late.

 

[nino_savatte]

Ok whatever


Never said I was. I said I was better than you. See, I just proved it now


I don't think it would put him in good stead with the Palestinians. But my point all along is that as I believe it is Israel that needs to stop doing what they are doing in order for peace to have a chance, then currying favour with the Palestinians is not needed.

Basically, the way to peace is to prevent that side which you believe to be an obsticle to peace, from being an obsticle. Like I have said time and time again, Israel is the one for me that is the major obsticle to peace (for reasons we need not get bogged down with), and therefore, someone needs to convince Israel to stop. It cannot be America for domestic reasons, nor can it be the EU who are looked on suspiciously by Israel. Blair can be the middle man.

However, the fact that you seem to think that it is not Israel that needs influencing, but the Palestinians, suggests you see the Palestinians as the major obsticle to peace, and for any peace initiative to work, it is the Palestinians that must stop opposing peace. I know that's not what you think, but that is effectively what you are saying when you continue this line of questioning. Understand?

You keep shifting the goalposts. If you think Blair is suitable for the role why did you say this once I pressed you?

I don't think it would put him in good stead with the Palestinians.

So why is he the right man for the job then, if not to act as a US hired gun?

But my point all along is that as I believe it is Israel that needs to stop doing what they are doing in order for peace to have a chance, then currying favour with the Palestinians is not needed.

So why is this relevant to Blair's suitability for the role?

This thread is about Blair being in the pay of Bush. Now do you agree with that statement or not? If not, why not? I have said why I think he is in the pay of Bush but so far all you have done is allude to his 'special' qualifications (read magical powers) and some vague stuff about Bush facing "domestic pressures".

 

[nino_savatte]

We have in Blair a master showman; a champion illusionist. In NI we saw the smiles and the handshakes on television and in the papers - the signs were all there. Peace at last! This is the media age; it's an age where actual events can be retold as stories. Digital editing, combined with the airbrushing out of certain less palatable facts (they get in the way of the narrative) make the news seem more entertaining, more real. But it is a hyperreality, the simulation of the real. The line "It's a great day to bury bad news" will forever be associated with New Labour's desire to manage the news and manipulate the facts...reality. It was a hallmark of the Blair years.

In the ME, Blair has the opportunity to create one of the biggest illusions of all times. He has the chance to piss over the achievements of David Copperfield. No flies on Blair, at least he has a toothy smile, believes in G*d and his sexuality isn't in question - eh? He has friends all over the globe, friends like Silvio Berlusconi, who has been accused of corruption and who described his style of politics as the "The Third Way". Then there's Dubya...nuff said. Or how about John Howard, who broke with tradition and called for US voters to re-elect Bush.

Blair's a rock n roll kind of guy. I mean, he even plays guitar...I mean..you know, look, how cool is that?

 

[CyberRose]

Everytime there is a thread on the Israel-Palestine conflict I see post after post saying Israel should do this, Israel should do that, America should do this, America should do that. It is a very rare occasion that I see anyone saying the Palestinians should do this or that in order for there to be peace. It seems the general consensus on here is that it is Israel that should be taking the initiative to give peace a chance, not the Palestinians. I would tend to agree with that analysis but what is missing from everyone's posts is how to get Israel to do this and that. It's all very well having these fancy ideas about what Israel is doing wrong and what it should be doing to ensure a peaceful settlement, but if you have no realistic suggestion as to how you might get Israel to act how you think they should be acting, then all the arguments are irrelevant.

Enter Mr Blair. Tony Blair, I believe, is in a position to "get Israel to do this and that." Or at least, is in a better position than the EU or America (who for various reasons cannot get Israel to "do this and that"), and he is certainly in a better position to influence Israel than people like you!

If it were the Palestinians that everyone blames for the lack of peace, then whoever tries to influence them needs to win their favour. The fact that you and most other people on this forum don't blame the Palestinians and instead blames Israel makes it irrelevant whether a peacemaker can influence the Palestinians or not, because in YOUR analysis, it is not the Palestinians that need influencing, it is Israel, and therefore, the best peacemaker is somebody who Israel will listen to - and I think Blair is in a better position than anyone to achieve that.

I hope that explains why I think Blair will be a good choice for the job (altho the fact that I have repeated myself numerous times already I'm not holding my breath that you will allow that to sink in).

As for whether Blair is in the pay of Bush - I don't know. I'm certainly not going to base my views on speculation in the media (funny isn't it, how when speculation in the media gives you a hard on, you take it as Gospel, but when that speculation seemingly runs counter to what you believe you pass it off simply as that - speculation in the media). But to tell you the truth, I think it's irrelevant where his money comes from (it will obviously come from a combination of America, Europe and Russia).

Tony Blair represents the Quartet and if the EU or Russia or the UN begin to think that Tony Blair is only acting in the interests of America then they will let it be known - and then, and only then, we can investigate as to whether or not that accusation is true.





(I think I answered all your points in the avalanche of posts above, altho I fully expect your next post to ignore everything I have written above and instead you will make some personal comment about me in the place of a valid argument. Or maybe you'll just tell me I'm wrong without offering an explanation why - that seems to be a favourite trick of yours. Maybe you're waiting for some other people to join in the debate and attack me so you can take a back seat having stirred things up nicely - and perhaps the reason you're getting a bit tetchy is because so far nobody has and you're left to defend yourself with no help?)

 

[nino_savatte]

Everytime there is a thread on the Israel-Palestine conflict I see post after post saying Israel should do this, Israel should do that, America should do this, America should do that.

Really? That's hardly surprising given the US's and Israel's role in all of this.

Ah, but what's this? Another attempt to personalise the argument? Sad .

(I think I answered all your points in the avalanche of posts above, altho I fully expect your next post to ignore everything I have written above and instead you will make some personal comment about me in the place of a valid argument. Or maybe you'll just tell me I'm wrong without offering an explanation why - that seems to be a favourite trick of yours. Maybe you're waiting for some other people to join in the debate and attack me so you can take a back seat having stirred things up nicely - and perhaps the reason you're getting a bit tetchy is because so far nobody has and you're left to defend yourself with no help?)

Wind your neck in will you? I don't think you've really "dealt" with anything. You have based your thesis solely on the notion that Blair possesses some sort of 'magical power'. I'm sorry if you find that hard to deal with. Oh and you're being a bit paranoid, don't you think?

Enter Mr Blair. Tony Blair, I believe, is in a position to "get Israel to do this and that." Or at least, is in a better position than the EU or America (who for various reasons cannot get Israel to "do this and that"), and he is certainly in a better position to influence Israel than people like you!

And this is your only reason why you think he is suitable for this role? Why do you think he will be able to "get" Israel to "do" anything when Israel pays no mind to what anyone thinks (apart from the US... and you extrapolate what you will from that by all means)

I think you keep missing something here: the US State Department has pretty much coughed up most of the cash for Blair's salary.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ian_williams/2007/08/whos_paying_fot_tony_blair_and.html

You made this assertion

you place the entire blame on Israel for the problems in the Israel-Palestine conflict, then I would also assume you believe Israel is the actor that needs to change what they are doing

I responded with this

If you want to look at it purely from an entirely Zionist perspective, then Blair did a bang up job by keeping schtum

You had a problem with the use of the word "Zionist", though, considering the theme of this thread, its use was entirely germane.

How many times have I heard this whenever either Israel or the US...or in this case, Blair is criticised for his unwillingness to condemn the wanton violence that Israel meted out to the Lebanese people en masse. Or did you forget how the entire Lebanese nation was punished?

You also overlooked the fact that the IDF had been making incursions into Lebanon prior to the all out assault that was visited on the Lebanese people

Blair is in the pay of the US State Department. He is hardly impartial, though I am sure you would like to think that he is.

.

You got the hump at this point and decided that the best tack was to personalise the discussion and use some pretty lame smears into the bargain.

what is missing from everyone's posts is how to get Israel to do this and that. It's all very well having these fancy ideas about what Israel is doing wrong and what it should be doing to ensure a peaceful settlement, but if you have no realistic suggestion as to how you might get Israel to act how you think they should be acting, then all the arguments are irrelevant.

No, the arguments are not "irrelevant" but what I do object to is you continued assumption that you are the only one who is offering a rational thesis. You're an arrogant one.

I don't suppose you've seen this thread.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=214871

Nah, it wouldn't interest you.

Oh and where did I suggest that you were a "neo con"?

 

[laptop]

As I said earlier, I reckon the whole point is that he should fail:

I don't think the idea of Blair as ME envoy is bizarre at all. Just a bit twisted.

It's domestic US politics.

It gives the Repugnicans, already gearing up for a difficult election, the chance to be seen to be Doing Something For Peace. They can't risk having one of their own risk failure - or risk a Democrat having some success - so they appoint one of the few foreigners that many Americans have heard of. (Think of the alternative candidates...)

Just floating the idea achieves much of this goal.

And out here in the world, would Blair be any good? Of course not. That's why he'd be completely acceptable to the rejectionist Zionists in Israel and elsewhere - those who want not to have a solution.

 

[ZAMB]

I don't think it would put him in good stead with the Palestinians. But my point all along is that as I believe it is Israel that needs to stop doing what they are doing in order for peace to have a chance, then currying favour with the Palestinians is not needed.

Basically, the way to peace is to prevent that side which you believe to be an obsticle to peace, from being an obsticle. Like I have said time and time again, Israel is the one for me that is the major obsticle to peace (for reasons we need not get bogged down with), and therefore, someone needs to convince Israel to stop. It cannot be America for domestic reasons, nor can it be the EU who are looked on suspiciously by Israel. Blair can be the middle man.

I don't think anyone could convince the Israelis to give up land that they have stolen. People don't voluntarily give up power, especially when they have nukes and the backing of the US. Certainly not some arse like Blair who has made no secret of being biased. Why should the Palestinians have any faith at all in his ability as any sort of honest broker?

I think this is a sort of poisoned chalice job that Blair has been handed, so that Bush can appear to be taking action in Palestine without really acting at all. Only the US witholding money and arms to Israel might make a real difference, and the US has not been willing to do that - it won't even lift its vetoes in the UN so that Iseael can be censured for its crimes against humanity.

 

[CyberRose]

As I said earlier, I reckon the whole point is that he should fail:

Well it's an interesting angle but it assumes Blair is the American envoy, not the Quartet's envoy, and as such, he is accountable to the Quartet - which includes the EU, Russia and UN

It also assumes America does not want peace, and altho you will point to the lack of peace and the apparent power of America to demand peace from Israel, I say domestic constraints restrict America's willingness to demand/enforce peace from Israel (it would be political suicide in that country for any politician to suggest such an action). I think America wants peace as much as the rest of the Quartet because if nothing else, the lack of peace is a ball-ache for them when they are pursuing their other policy objectives in the region (not to mention the security threat it helps create to America itself)

 

[CyberRose]

I don't think anyone could convince the Israelis to give up land that they have stolen. People don't voluntarily give up power, especially when they have nukes and the backing of the US. Certainly not some arse like Blair who has made no secret of being biased. Why should the Palestinians have any faith at all in his ability as any sort of honest broker?

I think this is a sort of poisoned chalice job that Blair has been handed, so that Bush can appear to be taking action in Palestine without really acting at all. Only the US witholding money and arms to Israel might make a real difference, and the US has not been willing to do that - it won't even lift its vetoes in the UN so that Iseael can be censured for its crimes against humanity.

He might not very well succeed. I just think he is in a better position than most to have a good go. But Israel did give up Gaza and before that the Sinai, so there is a precedent there that they might be willing to consider the West Bank to (altho I, like you, have serious doubts about that due to the power the Settler block has in the Knesset)

Also, like I have said a number of times, what the Palestinians think of Blair is secondary if Israel is the one that needs reining in (as I think we all agree?)

 

[CyberRose]

Really? That's hardly surprising given the US's and Israel's role in all of this.

My point exactly! I'm glad you agree!

And this is your only reason why you think he is suitable for this role? Why do you think he will be able to "get" Israel to "do" anything when Israel pays no mind to what anyone thinks (apart from the US... and you extrapolate what you will from that by all means)

I've said numerous times (read: every post) why I think Blair will be good for the job - because he has influence in Israel (similar to America, where he also has influence) yet I believe his views on the issue are more in line with the EU (where he also has influence)

Just out of interest - who do you think should have been Quartet envoy instead of Blair? (And I do expect an answer to this question...)

I think you keep missing something here: the US State Department has pretty much coughed up most of the cash for Blair's salary.

Like I said, where the money comes from is irrelevant until the Quartet begin to complain that Blair is acting in the interests of only America and not representing the rest of the Quartet. What you have posted so far suggests the State Department is paying his way until the Quartet sort out his funding, I see no problem with that - somebody has to pay for it - who do you suggest?!

I don't suppose you've seen this thread.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=214871

Nah, it wouldn't interest you.

No I haven't seen it yet, I shall give it some attention when I have some time (have a bit of a busy day today what with doing my Nan's shopping, watching Bryan Robson's Red n White Wizaaaaaaaards (that's football by the way) then back up to Leeds and hopefully a night out, then I will be spending all day with my girlfriend tomorrow, then on monday night I will hopefully be doing Krav Maga (yes! an Israeli martial art!!!) so it may not be until tuesday that I am free to watch it, so please, until then, no snide remarks, ok?)

Ah, but what's this? Another attempt to personalise the argument? Sad

Wind your neck in will you? I don't think you've really "dealt" with anything. You have based your thesis solely on the notion that Blair possesses some sort of 'magical power'. I'm sorry if you find that hard to deal with. Oh and you're being a bit paranoid, don't you think?

You made this assertion

I responded with this

You had a problem with the use of the word "Zionist", though, considering the theme of this thread, its use was entirely germane.

You got the hump at this point and decided that the best tack was to personalise the discussion and use some pretty lame smears into the bargain.

No, the arguments are not "irrelevant" but what I do object to is you continued assumption that you are the only one who is offering a rational thesis. You're an arrogant one.

Oh and where did I suggest that you were a "neo con"?

I lumped the rest of your post together because it doesn't need a reply

 

[nino_savatte]

My point exactly! I'm glad you agree!


I've said numerous times (read: every post) why I think Blair will be good for the job - because he has influence in Israel (similar to America, where he also has influence) yet I believe his views on the issue are more in line with the EU (where he also has influence)

Just out of interest - who do you think should have been Quartet envoy instead of Blair? (And I do expect an answer to this question...)


Like I said, where the money comes from is irrelevant until the Quartet begin to complain that Blair is acting in the interests of only America and not representing the rest of the Quartet. What you have posted so far suggests the State Department is paying his way until the Quartet sort out his funding, I see no problem with that - somebody has to pay for it - who do you suggest?!


No I haven't seen it yet, I shall give it some attention when I have some time (have a bit of a busy day today what with doing my Nan's shopping, watching Bryan Robson's Red n White Wizaaaaaaaards (that's football by the way) then back up to Leeds and hopefully a night out, then I will be spending all day with my girlfriend tomorrow, then on monday night I will hopefully be doing Krav Maga (yes! an Israeli martial art!!!) so it may not be until tuesday that I am free to watch it, so please, until then, no snide remarks, ok?)


I lumped the rest of your post together because it doesn't need a reply

Well, I'm not sure your post warrants a lengthy reply either. I have already made my points. But there are two things that I need to say: first, you seem to think that the "Quartet" offers a viable solution. You overlook the fact that certain members of that "quartet" are part of the problem. Secondly, you have continued to imply that Blair is the man for the job, in spite of the fact that he has no diplomatic experience and was literally picked by Bush to be "the Man". This is known as investing one's faith in the political economy of the sign.

Blair: the post-modern diplomat.

 

[Tankus]

Maybe its just a payoff for the poodle act in Iraq ,this makes the payoff look legal .... middle east peace is somewhat of an irrelevance

....Blair gets to carry on with his sound bite fetish on the world stage ,Bush gets to appease the democrats and the shifters in his party with the appearance of a diplomatic thrust ,rather than one with a gun .

But the US industomilitary will still coin it with the Saud's and government subsidised Israeli purchases .

Nothing like a good old arms race if your selling on both ends of the barrel, and if it caps off once in a while there are the ammunition after sales ,increase in spares and subsequent in the field upgrades .

Blair's a side show ....a media spin fest . Gets to do sharp intakes of breath with the quivering lips, moist eyes , and pregnant pauses .! In front of more respectful foreign journos who still believe the hype ..Never mind the content , just feel the quality of the delivery.!

The peoples politician
Back in the saddle

Trollope in tow on a freebie bargin hunt .
No pesky register of members interests and earnings here.

Its all percentages and in yer swiss..!

and ...Oh ...the adulation

edit .........

Just read laptops post
Im in total agreement

 

[Tankus]

The other thing that struck me , is that I thought that Reverend Blair would get some larger than normal paychecks for after dinner speeches in the US in front of some rather oily people tucking into very large ranch steaks ....

Bit too bleeding obvious I guess ,but Bush's clock is rapidly winding down.

If hes gonna get it , hes going to have to be quick . I guess the trollope is going to knock-up a lot of some freebie seat upgraded air miles very soon !

isn't life grand ...isn't it !

 

[ZAMB]

But Israel did give up Gaza

They didn't 'give up' Gaza - they moved their people out so that they could turn it into the world's largest prison camp.

 

[rhys gethin]

They didn't 'give up' Gaza - they moved their people out so that they could turn it into the world's largest prison camp.

And torment the people there, in the belief they can bully them into supporting the quislings who will 'negotiate' as they are told.

 

[ZAMB]

And torment the people there, in the belief they can bully them into supporting the quislings who will 'negotiate' as they are told.

That's who Blair's there to negotiate with - God forbid he would even speak to the democratically elected - many of whom are in israeli prisons.

 

[nino_savatte]

Just to remind some folk of why Blair is a bad choice and why Britain is seen as part of the problem, rather than the solution.

In its report, it said: "The unwillingness of the Quartet to challenge robustly the failure by both sides to meet their obligations has undermined its usefulness as a vehicle for peace."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6940331.stm

Hmm, the committee speaks with forked tongue

Despite criticism of Mr Blair's policies, the committee welcomed his appointment as a Middle East envoy.

 

[CyberRose]

Well, I'm not sure your post warrants a lengthy reply either. I have already made my points. But there are two things that I need to say: first, you seem to think that the "Quartet" offers a viable solution. You overlook the fact that certain members of that "quartet" are part of the problem. Secondly, you have continued to imply that Blair is the man for the job, in spite of the fact that he has no diplomatic experience and was literally picked by Bush to be "the Man". This is known as investing one's faith in the political economy of the sign.

Blair: the post-modern diplomat.

Yes whereas you're full of solutions to the problem aren't you? Like all the alternative and realistic solutions you haven't suggested on this thread or other threads right?

Tell me who you think should be the Quartet's Mid East envoy instead of Blair...

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes whereas you're full of solutions to the problem aren't you? Like all the alternative and realistic solutions you haven't suggested on this thread or other threads right?

Tell me who you think should be the Quartet's Mid East envoy instead of Blair...

Ah, another classic post from Cyber Rose. I never said that I had any "solutions" but that shouldn't bar me from commenting on this issue - should it? Do you think you possess all the answers? Do you have a solution or are you just trying to use that tack to claim some sort of moral superiority? Quelle arrogance.

You even ignored Bernie's post. Which is odd, considering he has made practically the same points as me.

This is your problem

Tell me who you think should be the Quartet's Mid East envoy instead of Blair.

You're rather limited to what is inside the box .

 

[CyberRose]

Ah, another classic post from Cyber Rose. You came to this thread, not for the purpose of a discussion, but for the sole intention of pursuing a vendetta.

Funny how you seem to have ignored everyone else's posts, except mine.

You even ignored Bernie's post. Which is odd, considering he has made practically the same points as me.

This is your problem

What would you like me to say to the others?

Tankus: Calls Blair a poodle and other various slurs against Blair that everyone's heard before and therefore I didn't feel the need to reply to any of it

ZAMB: I did actually get halfway through replying to his post to say "fair enough you have a point" but something came up and I forgot. I'm sorry nino, I'm sorry

rhys gethin: didn't really understand the post so yea, ignored it, you got me

No idea where this "bernie" post is tho?

But anyway, what's your game here? You run out of valid arguments to use against me so instead your tryin to turn these people against me? Trying to invalidate my arguments with accusations that I am pursuing some kind of vendetta against you (seriously, don't flatter yourself duck!!!)

The sad thing is you're an intelligent man, you don't need to use these underhand tactics against what I say, you're perfectly capable of having a reasonable debate so please could you do me the honour of debating instead of these daft accusations, and I shall reply in turn.

You're rather limited to what is inside the box .

I suspect this debate will go down the line of having to offer alternative solutions to finding peace as I don't think you agree with the Quartet and their solutions (which is why you are so freely able to dismiss Blair as envoy but not offer an alternative)

At the risk of completley derailing the thread, whatever you think the solution to peace is, assuming that it involves stopping Israel doing negative actions (hostile use of force in the occupied territories, building settlements, etc) - how do you think your solution can be implemented (realistically)?

 

[nino_savatte]

But anyway, what's your game here? You run out of valid arguments to use against me so instead your tryin to turn these people against me? Trying to invalidate my arguments with accusations that I am pursuing some kind of vendetta against you (seriously, don't flatter yourself duck!!!)

You're a wee bit full of yourself aren't you? I've "run out of valid arguments"? That's a laugh. All you've done is to come here and tell us all how muc hyou think Blair is the right man for the job. I, and others on this thread, do not agree with you. You seem to have a problem with that.

The sad thing is you're an intelligent man, you don't need to use these underhand tactics against what I say, you're perfectly capable of having a reasonable debate so please could you do me the honour of debating instead of these daft accusations, and I shall reply in turn.

Thanks for the backhanded compliment. I've said all that I wanted to say on this issue. Blair is the wrong man for the job.

At the risk of completley derailing the thread, whatever you think the solution to peace is, assuming that it involves stopping Israel doing negative actions (hostile use of force in the occupied territories, building settlements, etc) - how do you think your solution can be implemented (realistically)?

The "solution to peace"? You don't have a solution, you have embraced the hegemony's position. These things have come and gone: the Oslo Accords, Camp David and you think this is any better? You think that Blair comes to this role with clean hands? Please, catch yourself on.

 

[nino_savatte]

Oh, I edited my post. You missed this.

I never said that I had any "solutions" but that shouldn't bar me from commenting on this issue - should it? Do you think you possess all the answers? Do you have a solution or are you just trying to use that tack to claim some sort of moral superiority? Quelle arrogance.

 

[nino_savatte]

What isn't true about this statement?

"Blair's appointment as Special Envoy to the Middle East is welcomed by Zionists".

 

[nino_savatte]

Article from al-Jazeera
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/68B4523F-B853-4C8A-B771-6E6291B57F1A.htm

Russia may look for an opportunity to go solo

Russia had been advocating the idea of such a conference for a long time, but since reluctantly agreeing to the appointment of former UK prime minister Tony Blair as special envoy for the international “Quartet” (the EU, the UN, Russia, and United States), it has lost interest in this format. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denied rumors that he had tried to block this appointment, but Yevgeny Primakov, who remains a top authority on the Middle East in Moscow, asserted that Blair could not be a conductor for the Quartet, since he would stick to U.S. “policy” (RIA-Novosti, July

http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372368

 

[CyberRose]

The "solution to peace"? You don't have a solution, you have embraced the hegemony's position. These things have come and gone: the Oslo Accords, Camp David and you think this is any better? You think that Blair comes to this role with clean hands? Please, catch yourself on.

...

I never said that I had any "solutions" but that shouldn't bar me from commenting on this issue - should it? Do you think you possess all the answers? Do you have a solution or are you just trying to use that tack to claim some sort of moral superiority? Quelle arrogance.

If you have no alternative solution to those that have been put forward by others then just exactly what is your point in commenting on these issues? I'm not saying you shouldn't comment, I'm just really struggling to understand why you would?

 

[CyberRose]

What isn't true about this statement?

"Blair's appointment as Special Envoy to the Middle East is welcomed by Zionists".

If you want to just feel pleased for yourself then fine, there is nothing untrue about that statement (taking, of course, your definition of "Zionists")

However, if you want me to comment on it, please also include the point you are trying to make...