It felt like one of the shameful moments I’ve witnessed recently, when I saw Tony Blair shaking hands with Gaddafi. It was really a distressing scene. Why was that? Was it for real or just a show to buy time (on either part)?
I’m one of the people who believe firmly that the coalition led by the US and the UK is determined to eliminate terrorism and its originator; dictatorship, and Gaddafi is what I’ve always looked at as the comical version of S.H., still a very criminal and mad man.
So did the British prime minister believe that Gaddafi was sincere in changing his policy? I don’t think so. Does this mean that the strategy that includes getting rid of Gaddafi and his likes will go on? I believe so. Was Tony Blair a hypocrite then by shaking hands with the man he’s going to bring down or help in overthrowing soon? Not at all! There seems to be confusion here, but I believe that in every mess one can find an order.
Tony Blair knows very well that Gaddafi will remain… (Gaddafi), and the fact that he’s been acting nice only after Saddam was pulled out of that stinky whole, should tell us why he had suddenly changed his attitude, and that he will never go further that that without real pressure from outside. He certainly is not ready to give his people even the smallest space of freedom, and will drive them to the edge, where they will find the extremist mullahs waiting impatiently for the precious raw material to wrap an explosive belt around their bodies and send them to “heaven”, not before taking, God only knows where, who and how many innocent lives with them.
Of course Mr. Blair knows that better than me, so why is he ‘rewarding’ the dictator when he already knows that it’s just one step to delay fate and will not be followed by others? Seems like Mr. Blair is a hypocrite after all?! But no, knowing the outcome absolutely doesn’t mean planning it and everyone has the freedom to change once he decides, but will Gaddafi really change??
The problem that the coalition are facing here is that if they take an aggressive step towards Gaddafi, Assad or any other dictator, the madness of the ‘pacifist’ and the ‘antiwar’, anti American, anti Bush, anti everything, will have no limits and they have most of the media and many countries in the free world and some opportunistic politicians to back them as far and hard as they can. I can hear them saying” you are murdering the Libyan children”, and this will take me a little off topic maybe, but how come there are no huge demonstrations to protest against human rights violations in the 3rd world? Why not try to correct it yourself by pressuring the world to take a severe action against those dictators, instead of watching them, raping, torturing and slaughtering their own citizens? And then when the coalition would come to do the job, you are suddenly so keen on these poor people's lives and the human rights in Iraq is suddenly a major concern for you, when you know as we all know that the human rights in Iraq are a million times better than what it was at Saddam’s times.
Some people may take advantage of this scene now or in the future, saying that Mr. Blair launches a war against a ‘nation’ in the name of freeing people from dictatorship while he gives his blessing to another dictator! But that’s not the way it is. The way I see it, is that this witty and honest politician is saying to Gaddafi and to the world that such steps are welcomed, but there are many demands need to be answered before you can fit in the new world. There’s still more to be done, and after that, Gaddafi should be judged for his crimes against his people and the rest of the world. It seems that he doesn’t have a chance anyway and that’s true. He can chose between ending like Milosevic or like Saddam, and there’s absolutely no third choice.
Mr. Blair is giving peace a chance that he knows very well Gaddafi will not appreciate it, yet he has to do it. Of course Gaddafi is now not a real danger to the world peace and there are many other priorities, but he is a burnt out case, and he is a danger and a very serious one to his people. I wish to see the response of the people who opposed the war on Saddam because they 'were not told the real reasons', when they are forced to make a stance towards a war that is based on merely humanitarian causes. Will they support it? I'm afraid I have the answer and I just hope I'm wrong.