What Tony Blair does not understand There has been a rapid and predictable decline in the standing of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, both at home and abroad. This is not in any sense a party issue but more an issue of how politicians should not behave. Back in March, 2003, The Independent on Sunday published a revealing series of replies by Tony Blair to a selection of questions sent in by their readership. Tony Blair seems to hold honestly held convictions but they reflect clearly that he is out of his depth. For example, Helen O'Sullivan of Hertfordshire put the question, "How can you reconcile a pre-emptive attack on Iraq with your Christian beliefs, especially in the view of pressure from church leaders around the world?" Tony Blair initiated his reply by stating, "Of course my beliefs and values are obviously hugely important to me. I would never go into a war if I thought it were morally wrong or if I thought it was not in the best interests of this country." It isnt altogether certain by this reply if Tony Blair is in fact a Christian. Helen O'Sullivan mentions the pressure of church leaders. This is signal enough that anyone holding the "values" of a church might be expected to respond to those leaders. Blair sidesteps this valid point by saying his beliefs and values are obviously hugely important to him. But then he does not state what those values are but simply goes on to say that if he thought it were morally wrong or it was not in the best interests of the country, he would not go to war. Tony Blair seems to regard religion as a political issue. The country is made up of many people, most of whom consider themselves to live in a secular society and not one where a leader's personal religious interpretations should be the basis for taking decision on behalf of the population as a whole. Who cares what he thinks? The country is made up of many people, most of whom consider themselves to live in a secular society and not one where a leader's personal religious interpretations should be the basis for taking decision on behalf of the population as a whole. Under normal circustances this would be a Parliamentary decision, voided of religious colour, but reflecting constituency feeling. Tony Blair is way out on a thin limb. Under such circumstances he should either renounce his position or his religion, but being who he is, he will not. He will however, have the audacity to continue to promote his self-righteous stance based upon "his values" and "his beliefs" without ever bothering to say what these are nor ever considering the relevance of "his" beliefs to others. It is as if Blair seeks to baptise the British public into his morality on war, that all should take this leap of faith, simply on the basis that he asserts that he is right. One plausible reason why Tony Blair cannot even hint at what his values and beliefs are, is because it could well be that he does not in fact know what they really are. Like many others, his religious beliefs may be based upon a leap of faith, as opposed to a reasoned measured assessment of human values and responses to issues based upon experience coloured by the nuances and realities of our common humanity. His seems to be of that shady world where children are baptised as being of a religion in spite of the fact they have no idea what is being done to them or what is being stated in their name. It is as if Blair seeks to baptise the British public into his morality on war, that all should take this leap of faith, simply on the basis that he asserts he is right. Who cares how history will judge Tony Blair, when he advocates such an irresponsible approach to governance? No humanity no humility His lack of humility is reflectd in his de facto lack of genuine concern about the collateral deaths of innocents, and which permits an air of arrogance to pervade all that he says, even although he has developed a fairly convincing body language and hand control movements to transmit "the honest politician in control" look. According to Labour Party insiders, Blair is none of this. The carve up he orchestrated within the Labour party was not the work of some pious value-laden Christian, but the work of a calculating politician who knows what is best for him. Other readers asked why Blair advocates attacking Iraq when this country does not represent a threat to the United Kingdom. Others asked of the nature of the intelligence showing that Iraq poses a threat. Tony Blair's replies were all of the "I believe" mould and failed to provide any convincing arguments or evidence. Becky Home of London, for example, asked, "If your government has detailed knowledge supporting the fact that Iraq poses a threat to the rest of the world, why hasn't that knowledge been shared with the rest of the world?"  Tony Blair did not even reply to this question. Tony Blair did however, as we all recall, sign and publish third rate dossiers, containing nothing new, on Iraq with a somewhat ridiculous posturing associated with their release. The fact is Blair did and does not know According to Ibn Bn Nr, the Middle East intelligence expert, and who is closely associated with Sasi, neither the British not the Americans had, or have, any hard evidence and nor do Mossad. Israel, as per their normal practice, has been "feeding" snippets of information, some invented into the Amercian "channels". Formally, the Mossad chief, gave a briefing to a closed session of the NATO Council on 26 June 2002, in Brussels on the topic of the nuclear threat from Iran, Iraq and Syria. Bn Nr says the broad concensus of operatives is that Iraqi intelligence is far more sophisticated than the West gave it credit for. Around July 2002 a considerable amount of container activity, including transhipment from both trucks and ships took place. These are more than likely to have contained strategic weapons including some not listed on the UN lists. There is no presumption that these ended up in any country on the US axis of evil hit list. The highest likelihood is that today they remain in escrow, parked in container parks in several parts of the world. On the strategic dangers front, Bn Nr considers Western intelligence and both Bush and Blair to be completely in the dark. He considers there to have been a sophisticated disinformation intelligence coup which has caused this duo to end up serving the interests of other groups whose overall motivation is definitely not the security of the people of America or the United Kingdom. Bn Nr says the immediate interests being served are those of Israel whereas the practical outcome is that the US and Britain will take the brunt of any subsequent fallout, including terrorism. The "swing" in public opinion? Following the English Civil War the make up of the English and then British fighting forces took on a sorry state. Moving from genuine volunteers joining local militia to forces largely populated by individuals who has been press ganged into "service". With the organization of central government military forces took on the form of a military arm of the civil service populated by people who are not volunteers to a specific cause, but rather wage earners like other civil servants. In the days of pressed service worried families were less interested in the issues being fought over than the welfare of their young men forced into fighting. In essense where modern governments decide, in an arbitrary fashion, to go to war, a similar environment is created. Parents, and the population at large, not wishing harm befall those fighting, by default support the fighting youth, but this should not be confused for support of the "cause". Much of the public relations statements concerning the "increase in support for war", once the fighting started, was anything but. Once fighting starts, as has been now a long tradition in Britain, people's instinct is to support those fighting. This should never be confused, as Tony Blair seems to have done, with a support for the cause articulated by government. Mixing religion and politics - a dirty business ... within the secular affairs of state, leaps of faith are no basis for taking rational decisions in the affairs of man. In the past, in justifying his stand, Blair has made much of his "success" in taking similar decisions in the Balkans war and he has on occasions remided us that Milosovich is behind bars. Just before Blair was born, in 1941, Catholic Croatian Ustasi murdered some 840,000 Serbs (orthodox Christians), Jews and Roma (Gypsies) in Croatia and took their possessions and property to build a Catholic Croatia. This country is just about to apply for membership of the European Union. This genocide was fully supported by Archbishop Stepinac, and Pope Pius 12 received the Ustasi leadership with enthusiasm at the Vatican, group photographs and all. But where were any appeals for war crimes trials? The Vatican lobbies worked hard to doused those which were made. The current Pope, set in motion the beautification of both Archbishop Stepinac and Pius 12, for them to become saints. The reality is that the Vatican had always worked against a unified and Orthodox-dominated Yugoslavia and encouraged the original gun running to the Ustasi through Hungary before the second world war. NATO, and the Blairs of this world, helped the Vatican complete this work. But then, when an opportunity presents itself, the Pope is the first to take centre stage as a world leader for peace, rebuking those who promote warfare. With church leaders like this, can one blame Tony Blair for ignoring them. But then, based on his own confused statements, he really isnt much better. The sad difference is that, in demanding leaps of faith, the church leadership knows exactly what it is doing, and why. On the other hand, Tony Blair does not, because within the secular affairs of state, leaps of faith are no basis for taking rational decisions in the affairs of man.