As mcuhas I admire Blair's courage vis a vis Iraq, his appeasement instincts (the Road Map to Treblinka)regarding Palestinian nihilism are very dangerous.

It seems to be something about the Europeans that they cannot understand, or don't want to, that the Palestinians from the word go resorted to violence and broke every agreement they signed.
Maybe the facts are starting to get to GWB but for too long everything has been taken out of context and this had led to some of the delusions predominating.
Maybe Krugman can force his students to think his way but he has wreaked havoc with people the NYT has influenced. Bush hopefully is getting better intel to understand correctly the situation but he still has to deal with the entrenched thinking in the State Dept., which seems to be hand in glove with the CIA.
This has already created sloppy policy on the Israeli/Palestinian situation and the roadmap is testimony to it.

"if Israel is under existential threat, and is in the front line of the west's defence against Islamic fascism, Bush needs to translate his admirable words into deeds against those sponsors of terror whose appeasement he so rightly condemns."

It'll happen soon enough. He's only just getting started. He needs to bring a diverse body of opinion along with him, but he's getting there.

I agree that something overt has to happen to convince both arab and jew that israel's borders are secure and that its existence is permanent - at the moment there is a sneaking hope/doubt in both that this is the not the case and agression will make the other side give up/go away.

The simplest remedy is to admit Israel to full membership of Nato surely.

Melanie wants Bush to translate words into "deeds". But don't we all?

America right now is up to its armpits in "deeds" in the Middle East. All of my country's military actions there constitute (among other things) direct or indirect aid for Israel.

But the USA has run out of soldiers. Some of the deeds that Ms Phillips perhaps has in mind could probably be undertaken by the IDF (possessing arguably the world's second most lethal air/ground combat capability). That Israel obviously doesn't feel free to unleash its considerable military power is one more example of how players on the world stage persistently face constraints of one sort or another.

You are a fountain of evil. I saw you on Question Time spluttering your ultimate allegiance to Israel when put on the spot by Will Self; it would seem that you don't pass the cricket test. But then, I doubt if you even pass the human being test.

James, what in f*ck are you talking about?

Melanie, why did you even bother to waste time in the same room with Will Self?

Right on Mel - suggest you avoid BBC forums - the BBC is going through a soviet period where honourable political discourse is not welcome.

Back to the main thread ; 1-Israel is on the front line of the war for freedom [rather than a war against anything] and 2-Tony Blair is a dangerous person who is naive about international politics and too idealistic.

Like Clinton & Allbright - at the time they sounded great - only now can we see they exposed the US to enormous risk by an appeasers romanticies approach to other people's conflicts.

I always hope that the terrorists will get Blair because, in the end, when history is written - he will be seen as a greater threat to us - than saddam hussein ever was.

Crime is crime, is crime - killing is killing is killing - the problem is the apologists who want to see this a different way and want to build a new industry of truth and reconcilliation merchants who are usually very highly paid lawyers, doo gooders who have nothing better to do.

Simple justice is the simple remedy to this western cancer of apology and appeasement.

"That Israel obviously doesn't feel free to unleash its considerable military power is one more example of how players on the world stage persistently face constraints of one sort or another."
George, don't know exactly what you are intimating but your memory must be very short if you don't remember the very horror expressed in 1991 and again at the beginning of this year when somebody brought up the subject of Israel getting involved. It's sort of like that girlfriend you don't dare present at home situation!
Anyway pragmatism does not seem to be part of the Pentagon's and FBI's usable words, and the CIA is hand in glove with the State Dept. So at least honour at table is preserved.

Bush's latest attempt to find an ex post facto rationale for the attack on Iraq is to try to portray it as part of an American move to 'democratize' the Middle East. He said: "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."
Is he serious ? I dont think so :
Until they were desperately trying to scare up some money from the international community in order to help pay Halliburton's enormous bill, the Americans did everything they could to deny any move towards democracy in Iraq. They set up a phony group of leaders - the Iraqi Governing Council - to serve as a substitute for democracy, but resisted every single attempt that group made to have any real power or create any real democracy. When the Americans needed foreign money and fodder units, they claimed they would accelerate the process of turning over power, but now that the beg-a-thon is over I would be very surprised if we see any actual power turned over to the Iraqi people in the foreseeable future.

The sole reason there are no real democracies in the area is that the British and Americans set things up that way. The people in the Middle East hate their thuggish dictatorships, but are fully aware that these dictatorships exist only because the Americans want them to exist. The most famous example of American efforts in the area is the CIA's removal of Mossadeq from Iran in 1953, but there have been similar machinations in every country in the Middle East. Even Saddam was under American protection until he moved into Kuwait. If you add on to this history the continuing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people by American agent Israel, it is not difficult to see how ridiculous Bush's speech must sound to those who live in the Middle East.

Bremer of Baghdad allows freedom of the press in Iraq just up to the point where something is printed that might be construed as an attack on the United States, its interests in Iraq, or its occupation. In other words, it is exactly the freedom of the press you would expect in a dictatorship.

The democratization argument is apparently the latest in a string of attempts to defend the indefensible attack on Iraq and subsequent occupation. They've tried Iraqi links to al Qaeda (none), weapons of mass destruction (none), removal of an awful dictator (but the Americans actively support dictators just as thuggish as Saddam), and liberation of the Iraqi people (who are proving that they don't feel liberated by their resistance). Karl Rove is getting desperate. The main political problem of the democratization argument is that it is far too complex for the vast majority of Americans to comprehend. Americans are, without any question, the stupidest people in the world. You could paddle a canoe up the farthest reaches of the Amazon and find people more intelligently aware of the world than all but the top fraction of one percent of Americans. The Republicans have got away with using a combination of fright and jingoism to manipulate American popular opinion. Some argument about political science in the Middle East is going to go so far over the heads of most Americans that they would need the Hubble Telescope to see it. Why would Americans spend billions of dollars and suffer thousands of casualties in Iraq to possibly aid in the creation of a political concept in countries most of them have never even heard of, especially when crooked voting machines and the efforts of the Supreme Court mean that this concept of 'democracy' clearly doesn't exist in the United States?

Just as an example of the nuttiness of the speech, Bush somehow manages to criticize Iran for its lack of democracy while praising Saudi Arabia for its progress.
Saudi Arabia is an utter dictatorship, with absolutely no freedom of expression and a slight promise of some local government democracy. Iran has a democratically elected leader in a fair election, something the United States can't even boast about, and an extremely lively level of political debate. In contrasting these two countries in Bush's speech we have a clear example of how Americans use the terms 'democracy' and 'freedom' as political weapons to achieve American geopolitical goals which have nothing to do with democracy or freedom.

The only way we will ever see the "establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East" is if the Iraqi people kill a lot of Americans, something which they seem to be doing very successfully.

JohnD's disgusting anti-Americanism is beneath contempt. Yes, one can and should criticise aspects of the American/British/other efforts to free Iraq, but what would the likes of JohnD have done instead?

The usual answer is a long silence. If I am wrong about that perhaps this fellow can enlighten us. And fcrissakes spare us more bilge about Halliburton. It's a scratched record. Try to be original, peaceniks.

'Yes, one can and should criticise aspects of the American/British/other efforts to free Iraq, but what would the likes of JohnD have done instead?'

So far US/British efforts to 'free Iraq' have resulted in tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths - the vast majority being either innocent civilians or pathetically armed conscripts. Thats children, women and young men who were killed by the actions of YOUR GOVERNMENT. Of course, several hundred allied troops have also died, again thanks to YOUR GOVERNMENT.
It is now costing billions just to maintain a military presence there and the killing goes on and will continue.
If you can't see that the Bush/Neo-con actions has been a complete disaster - you have to be just as stupid as them.
You know damn well that this disgusting situation could have been avoided if the Bush brigade had a braincell of intelligence between them.
I believe they WILL be held accountable for their obscene actions.
The problem lies with the US political system - it is a joke and most US citizens are too stupid/stupified to care about it and most actually believe the disgusting US media and it's state-controlled lies. The US is being converted into a police state and people like you, Johnathan Pearce are too dumb to see it.

"The sole reason there are no real democracies in the area is that the British and Americans set things up that way. The people in the Middle East hate their thuggish dictatorships, but are fully aware that these dictatorships exist only because the Americans want them to exist...."

JohnD,

For some reason you seem to be laboring under the belief that the US was a member of the League of Nations. It was not. I challenge you to list ONE place in the Middle East that was governed by US administrators in accordance with a League of Nations mandate.

" The problem lies with the US political system - it is a joke and most US citizens are too stupid/stupified to care about it and most actually believe the disgusting US media and it's state-controlled lies. The US is being converted into a police state and people like you, Johnathan Pearce are too dumb to see it."

JohnD. Your claims about the US would be much more convincing were they to be supported with argument demonstrating an actual knowledge or basic education regarding this "US political system" you find so humourous. As far as I can tell you seem to actually believe Americans like Mr. Pearce and myself are 'dumb' for not seeing the fantasyland "Amerikkka" as it exists in your own mind is becoming a police state....

Is there any reason Mr. Pearce or myself should bother taking the time to provide you with sources or links as counter arguments to your assertions? If like a Grand Inquisitioner intent on burning some American heritic, your opinions and judgements are beyond our appeals to reason, then why shouldn't Mr. Pearce and myself look at each other and be glad our Atlantic Moat protects us somewhat from unenlightenable zealotry? If in your eyes we are damned by definition and dint of our citizenship, so be it. But if that's the case, why should we view your writing as other than intended to insult?

I asked JohnD above what he would have done different on Iraq. I read his latest post several times and came up empty. Instead we got a bunch of assersions, half-truths and personal invective.

No surprise there then.

'I asked JohnD above what he would have done different on Iraq'.

NOT invading Iraq would have been a good start.
Removing the sanctions would have showed some degree of humanity.
Using diplomatic negotiation.
Working with the UN instead of against it.

Prety obvious stuff really.

JohnD writes: "removing the sanctions would have showed some degree of humanity. using diplomatic negotiation....."

Riiiiiight. So we lift the sanctions on humanitarian grounds. (What about the no-fly zones, by the way? Does JohnD want to lift them?)

Lifting the sanctions (which were being increasingly broken by the Russians and French anyway) would let Saddam build his economy and you can be sure, bolster his military forces. He's hardly going to use the benefits to help his people, since he used a lot of the oil-for-food programme run by the UN to pay for his network of palaces. The idea that Saddam was desperate about the welfare of his subjects is a sick joke only believed by traitors and buffoons like George Galloway.

As for diplomatic solutions, you have to laugh. What on earth does JohnD and those who share such views think happened during the 1990s? Saddam was expert at playing the game and in the end, it was only due to the threat of military force that he allowed the UN weapons inspectors back in after they had to leave in 1998, a fact which JohnD must be aware. And even with large forces on his borders, Saddam still failed to come clean with the inspectors and still tried to play for time. In the end such diplomacy is a farce unless there is a willingness to enforce UN resolutions if necessary, by force.

"Pretty obvious stuff really".

johnathan Pearce - reading your posts I have come to the long overdue conclusion that you are an idiot.

JohnD, once again demonstrates fantastic capacity for reasoned argument. Let's review the situation:

JohnD thinks we can fix issues like Saddam's Iraq by lifting sanctions, lifting any other nasty things we did, and using diplomacy to ensure Saddam adheres to international law. Yep, that'll work just fine, I am sure.

And of course the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south would be just thrilled to know that we would be leaving them to Saddam's tender mercies, like we did in 1991, to horrific effect.

Another point this "idiot" would like to make is this: we backed Saddam in the 1980s while he inflicted massive casualties on Iran and probably his own people. We in the West owe the ordinary Iraqi people a debt and I don't see how "diplomacy" would remove Saddam's brutal rule from their shoulders.

Weighing up the pros and cons of military action vs Iraq is tough and no side can claim moral purity on this. But shouting murder at Bush and calling for Iraqis to kill American troops justifies my original disgust at JohnD's remarks.

Melanie Phillips is right to keep the focus on the moral depravity on parts of the "peace" movement.

You're not an idiot, JohnD. You are actually something much, much worse.

I think Johnathan Pearce has lost the plot here.

He does not appear able to accept that grave mistakes have been made by the invasion of Iraq - of which the Bush (and Blair) governments should be held responsible.

The diplomacy route was ignored by Bush - not only with respect to Saddam, but the UN and in fact any body seeking a to avert the war.
Now we learn that there is mounting evidence that Saddam was trying to offer complete cooperation with the US, several months before the war - which of course, was completely ignored by Bush.

The war was NOT backed by international approval.

There can be no doubt that NO plans were in place to deal with the aftermath of the war eg government, security, infrastructure.

So is it any surprise that Bush's speech has provoked derision ?

Personally I am amazed that the US public tolerate Bush's behaviour and are not rioting on the streets - but hey thats just my view !

I am getting tired of this thread, but Ron, unlike JohnD, at least makes the attempt to argue. For starters, I have no quarrel with those Bush critics who say that the coalition forces were woefully underprepared with a post-Saddam Iraq. They were. The current problems in Iraq bear that out.

"The diplomacy route was ignored by Bush," writes Ron. Rubbish. The US, which could, and in some eyes, should, have acted immediately after 9/11 in fact went through the mill of the UN gab-fest for 18 months before war. As I said above, UN resolutions are worthless unless, in the final analysis, they can be acted upon, by force if necessary. Otherwise they are worthless pieces of paper.

And to repeat another point, the diplomatic route was tried throughout the 1990s, and the inspections regime became increasingly unworkable, while the sanctions came at a clear humanitarian cost. Anyone claiming that Bush and others should have continued, ad infinitum, down the diplomatic route has to confront that point and deal with it.

I have problems with Bush's pre-emption doctrine, though, since it clearly opens the chance of further risky interventions. But let's be clear. Iraq was clearly in breach of a host of UN resolutions, and the coalition powers were right to act, just as the French were outrageous in saying that, after supporting resolution 1441, they would oppose military action come what may. No wonder the US hold much of "old Europe" in contempt!