Tony Blair On Afghanistan, Attacking Iran, And Dick Cheney's Post-9/11 Worldview (VIDEO)

Why is Tony Blair saying nice things of any kind about Dick Cheney? Even if you stand by your claim that the Iraqi invasion was absolutely necessary, you don't have to agree with Cheney about his ideological worldview.

Dick Cheney believes in a hard-line approach because he is out of touch with the reality that hard-line approaches always results in lots of casualties, military and civilian alike. Look no further than what the hard-line Israelis have done over the past few years.

With regards to Iran, perhaps I am in no position to harshly criticize Blair's views, because I am unfamiliar with the circumstances that he was under that has prompted him to possess those views. But speaking from my education and what I've learned (my History BA Degree is a concentration in Middle Eastern history), the Middle East is an immensely complex region that cannot, and must not, be simplified into 'who's good', 'who's evil', 'who ought to be contained', etc. Countries such as Syria, Jordan, and Turkey, while somewhat volatile in their own right, act as a natural barrier in containing the more 'dangerous' countries such as Iran, and to lesser degrees, Yemen and Afghanistan.

Why is Iran a threat? Not because of its people, but because the government is currently headed up a selected group of unique nut jobs (radicals with extreme views, being the better term). President Ahmedinejad has the backing of Ayatollah Khamenei. The country itself, in terms of political / social progress and human rights, is miles ahead of its neighbors in the Persian Gulf, particularly Saudi Arabia, infamous for its suppression of human rights.

So why has Tony Blair, and the rest of the Western World, been doing next to nothing to help rid the dictatorships of these countries? The obvious reason is of course business interests. The oil-addicted Western World dare not mess with its main source of supply.

I, along with a lot of political commentators in Canada and the US, have been under the impression that Tony Blair is a very smart and savvy politician. And I'm trying to make sense of Blair's believe to leave military action against Iran on the table. I can't, because it doesn't make sense.

Maybe David Cameron will bring something new for Britain's foreign policy agenda. Then again, maybe not.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ahmadinejad the 'Truther'

Who knew that this movement still exists? Well, it does, and recently we are reminded by none other than the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has claimed that the 9/11 attacks were a lie:

"
"September 11 was a big lie and a pretext for the war on terror and a prelude to invading Afghanistan," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by state TV. He called the attacks a "complicated intelligence scenario and act."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/06/ahmadinejad-911-attacks-a_0_n_488789.html

Okay, I get it. There are still skeptics out there who believed that the 9/11 attacks were fabricated by the Bush administration so that they could put their military to work by going to Afghanistan, and then Iraq.

I mean, granted that these 'Truthers' have found scientific 'proof' that this happened, the implications of this would be so devastating that it is inconceivable that any substantial amount of the population would buy the theory. It would shake the foundation of American government to the core, to the point where the country will fall apart.

So, having said that, we have Ahmadinejad, joining these nutcase conspiracy theorists, in that claiming 9/11 was a big lie.

Remember that Mahmoud only controversially re-elected. By the way, do we still really know for sure that he won with the majority of the votes? Why is he even bringing this unwanted attention onto himself? And he is disrespecting Americans in the process; not that he's never done this before, but does he really need this?