Was Blair right to shake Gaddafi's hand

[Brovion]

He was right to shake his hand. Obviously people who have suffered at the hands of Libyan-sponsored terrorism will feel aggrieved (as do probably victims of the US/GB in Iraq seeing one of their people sucking up to the infidels) and I have every sympathy with them. However life's got to go on, the world's got to keep on turning and we've all got to share the same planet. The same way as we had to 'forgive' the Japanese (although some individuals still can't - again fair enough) and the Germans for WW2 we can't go on hating people for past events.

 

[JJ McClure]

Did anybody else pick up the fact that a Shell representation was on the SAME flight as Blair, and investment is now flooding into Lybia.

This has little to do with Lockerbie or the War on Terror.

Indeed. Blair is openning the way for British firms to invest in Libya and win potential contracts out there. I thinks it's a good move, and actually flies in the face of the US administration that is still anti Gadafi.

 

[bhaexpress]

I find it ironic that the current excuse for invading Iraq was to spread democracy and get rid of an evil dictator, but now it seems all Saddam really needed to do was bung the west a few millions dollars, say he's sorry and everything would have been dandy. So much for the moral high ground. Remember in the 80's Gaddafi was every bit as vilified by the west as Saddam was through the 90's to today. So what changed?

I agree with this to a point but there again, many people seem to forget that the reason for the animosity between the Arab and Western Worlds is not without foundation.

It's a good thing that Blair has attempted to reduce hostility by trying to put the past behind both sides.

 

[Normal Rob]

you have to ask yourself one question - do you trust Gaddafi?

If yes - then Blair was right.
If no - Blair was wrong.

Personally i'm not sure that I trust him

 

[bhaexpress]

You might also ask if Gaddafi trusts us. It's not all down to the Arabic world as I have said.

After all, both sides have to start somewhere.

 

[Normal Rob]

point taken

 

[Row Z Creased Shirt]

For once I found myself in agreement with both TB and GG on an issue of international affairs.

I think he was right to shake gaddafi's hand. We should be looking to improve relations with those we once considered our enemies it's a small step toward making the world a better place, and shows that the west can be partner in the middle east as well as an antagonist. I also agree with the governments' policy of constructive engagement with Iran and hopefully this will be bare similar diplomatic fruit.

However, and their does always have to be a but these days, whilst Shell and Bae start to make multi-billion dollar hay with our new best friend, I do hope that Blair will also acknowledge the continued human rights abuses in Libya, and that as part of the thawing of relations Gaddaffi should stop locking people up for their political opinons.

Also before we start offering any military aid we should be absolutely sure that this will not be used for internal repression.

I think the handshake was a good start, but we should proceed with caution. Demonstrating that there are rewards and benefits in being co-operative and that rulers have nothing to fear from freedom of speech and thought.

 

[perseus]

Is Blair lucky? I should say so. He shakes Gaddafi's hand and his rival Kennedy (Lib-Dems) goes down with a tummy bug!

 

[US Seagull]

I agree with this to a point but there again, many people seem to forget that the reason for the animosity between the Arab and Western Worlds is not without foundation.

It's a good thing that Blair has attempted to reduce hostility by trying to put the past behind both sides.

I agree it's impossible and unrealistically idealistic to try and take the high road and not deal with dictators and I'm not saying it's wrong to try and reduce hostility and build bridges but it does illustrate that all this crap about liberating the people of Iraq and bring democracy to the middle east is just talk. There are willing to make deals with Gaddafi now that he's promised to play nice, they hail Musharraf as an ally despite the fact he siezed power from an elected government in a military coup and has yet to make any progress towards returning to democracy, they won't put pressure on the Saudi royal family to reform their system and we still haven't had elections in Afghanistan (anybody remember Afganistan?). They're playing a game of bait and switch with the US and UK public.

 

[US Seagull]

Whoops, double post.

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

i'm half and half on this, but i still smell a rat

 

[looney]

Was Blair right to shake Gaddafi's hand?

Yes

 

[Spiros]

It's very much in our interests as well as Libya's that the hand shaking took place. Holding onto long-standing resentment and refusing to do business with other countries for historical reasons is the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and does no-one any good. OK, so some are not going to be happy at the fact that Blair has kissed and made up with Libya but it's far better that we move on in a positive way. Far better than the US approach of 'Do as we say or we'll bomb your ass!'

 

[Jambo Seagull]

ITS DISGUSTING AND AN INSULT TO THE JOCKS RE LOCKERBEE

Blair the Puppet of Bush should resign now,

BRING ON THE TORRIES! let our great nation be great again and the land be filled with blue

PS for every LOckerbee jock that was behind Blair just as many WERE NOT!!!!!!!!!

Where to start on this one?!

Firstly, by "Jocks" do you mean the Scots people on the ground who were killed by the plane coming out of the sky or the university basketball team from upstate New York on the plane. Please explain.

I see you regard Blair as a puppet of Bush but you want the Torries (sic) to come to power. If you mean the Tories then I can't see how they are going to be any less amenable to Dubya than Blair. IDS, that well-known statesman was completely uncritical of Blair's stance of the Iraq war as is Howard. It is blatant and disingenuous opportunism on the part of Howard to criticise Blair on this.

As for you lost point you've lost me. What is a LOckerbee jock? Please explain.

 

[Hungry Joe.]

Neither of them can lie straight in bed. International politics is a dirty game. If points of principal dictated decisions then no dialogue would happen between any parties. I guess it just comes down to trying to make the world a safer place to live in. Better shake hands and talk than bomb each other via terrorism or spurious 'wars'.

 

[jeremy beadles hand]

That's crap! Gadaffi is as bad as Bin Laden. Look at the Lockerby bombings. Do you think he should shake bin ladens hand in 10 years?

Sorry the guys not even worth the price of a bullet!

 

[ben andrews' girlfriend]

That's crap! Gadaffi is as bad as Bin Laden. Look at the Lockerby bombings. Do you think he should shake bin ladens hand in 10 years?

thats my argument.

saying that i'd rather have him "on our side" than against us

 

[Keith B Wetherill]

I'm not sure this subject is for a fans forum but since it's come up I must join in
I find it incredible that Blair should EVER talk to this man, He is resposible for Lockerbie,PC Fletcher,IRA support,and the home of terrorists.
How can we trust such a person? What should happen is we should wait for his death or overthrow before any contact with Libya, I am sad to say Blair has his own agenda he sees his destiny as President of a federal state of Europe.
If he really was a genuine PM with patriotic values he should be concentrating his efforts on domestic business.
I just hope his latest folly in the middle east doesn't backfire at our cost..
Gaddaffi is an animal I am ashamed of Blair.

 

[The Large One]

Where to start on this one?!

Firstly, by "Jocks" do you mean the Scots people on the ground who were killed by the plane coming out of the sky or the university basketball team from upstate New York on the plane. Please explain.

I see you regard Blair as a puppet of Bush but you want the Torries (sic) to come to power. If you mean the Tories then I can't see how they are going to be any less amenable to Dubya than Blair. IDS, that well-known statesman was completely uncritical of Blair's stance of the Iraq war as is Howard. It is blatant and disingenuous opportunism on the part of Howard to criticise Blair on this.

As for you lost point you've lost me. What is a LOckerbee jock? Please explain.

Plus...

how can you be a Bush puppet AND shake Gaddafi's hand? The US don't want anything to do with him. The US are not happy with Blair for doing this, although will naturally be keeping a close eye.

This is actually Blair at the vanguard of international relations, DESPITE what Bush may or may not want him to do. Remember, Blair and the UK government, is also a lot more keen on an independent Palestine, which is at loggerheads with Bush's ideals.

This has nothing to do with ridiculous notions like 'patriotism'. It is to do with getting an Arab leader back from the international wilderness, which can only assist what Middle East peace process there is. Plus there will be British jobs after this diplomatic mission, and no American ones. Ha!

 

[US Seagull]

he should be concentrating his efforts on domestic business.

I think that is exactly what he's doing. Getting the anglo-dutch company Shell the rights to explore for oil of the coast of Libya.