Blair HAD to go to war, true/false?

I've posted about this in another forum, but as it's related to the wot i'll ask you guys in here too.

Is Tony Blair bound by a secret agreement to go to war with the US?

I have just read this from cryptome, i just wondered if it was true or not? If it is, it might explain a few things. Heres an extract from the letter i read....

"There is a secret clause in the Trident submarine treaty that was signed by Mrs Thatcher in 1983. The secret clause states that the British Prime Minister is required to go to war if he/she gets the order from the President of the United States. You will appreciate that this information explains a lot, notably why Blair has repeatedly gone to war, but only when required to by the Americans. It also explains why Blair is so different from his Labour predecessors, such as Harold Wilson, who refused to send our troops to Vietnam in 1968. The secret agreement was designed by Thatcher to secretly tie the hands of British Prime Ministers for many years to come. Without naming sources, I received this information from a British Army officer a couple of years ago."

Site it came from cryptome.org...

Link to letter cryptome.org...

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this.

CX.


[edit on 7-4-2006 by CX]
*Added external quote tags*

[edit on 7-4-2006 by dbates]

I don't know if i've missed something but surely if he HAD to wouldn't he of made it public that he HAD to from a previous Conservative Governments slip up? Why make the Labour party unpopular with anti-war protestors for the sake of it??

Exactly what i thought. He'd have saved himself a whole lot of grief if this was the case, yeah ok it still won't change much if it is true and he had to ablige the agreement, but it may explain a few things.

Might open up a whole other big can of worms too but thats another story altogether!

CX.

Seems unlikely to me - we did have 2 other choices: develop our own missiles or joint development with the French.

Not convinced by the 'evidence' or that Maggie would have signed such an agreement.

Bliar took the decision for his own reasons; part mesianic god-bothering 'destiny' reasons and part retaining goodwill with the Yanks. In the latter instance a withdrawl of Trident support may have been threatened but think that's the only link between the war and the missiles.

Originally posted by CX
Is Tony Blair bound by a secret agreement to go to war with the US?

This may be of interest to you?
Certainly was to me and it fits well within what you may be thinking.
Bush and Blair made secret pact for Iraq war






seekerof

The proposal made in the thread Seeker linked to makes a lot more sense than a secret provision of the Trident exchange.

A treaty like that is a dead letter. There is no practical enforcement for it.

If Blair had inherited an obligation to go to war and didn't want to honor it, why not just say no?

What's the US going to do in response? Is Bush going to insult the pride of all Britons and cost America is historically most valued ally by waving a copy of the treaty and saying "You have to do what we say because my daddy's old boss tricked you guys into promising!"?

When it comes right down to it, you've always got a choice. Even if you've got a gun to your head, you have technically got a choice... just not one that anyone should have to make.

Good, bad, or indifferent, this war happened and the British helped it happen when there was nobody with the practical ability to force them into it. That's something that British dissenters must live with every bit as much as American dissenters must.

It is not pleasant to think one's nation has done wrong, and without getting into my own feelings, which walk a fine line, I realize that at least some of the dissenters (excluding a certain strictly partisan segment) do believe that their country has done an evil thing. That's not a fun thing to face, but one must deny ignorance and accept that his nation made that choice. If you fail to do so, you can only curse fate. If you do so however, you may then strive for change.

While the majority of the worlds population still choses to accept the lie that America 'calls the shots', those who tell them what orders to give and actions to take, will continue to escape blame, disguised as the puppets and not the masters.

America didn't win it's 'freedom' from the British, they just negotiated a better salary and fancy executive title to go with the 'simple job' they have to do for their masters.

You 'use' the handsome young horse in sprints, 'till they're ready for the can, but you hide the priceless old stud, among the other forgotten, old, hairy beasts.

Damn, sorry,... there I go feeding babies steak again, instead of the corn syrup mush their delicate young systems are used to.

Steak is for grown ups, steak is for grown ups, steak is for grown ups...

The possibility is considerable, however feel free to post conclusive evidence if you're going to assert it that strongly and self-righteously dismiss other members as "babies".

America has in fact made convenient decisions for Britain at times, but it has also gone its own way at times.

We maintained territorial disputes with them in the North West- we're lucky it didn't come to blows as some Americans wanted it to.

We again almost went at it during the civil war- they casually supported the CSA and we interferred with their diplomatic missions to the South (namely in the Trent Affair).

America has never cracked down on its citizens who donate to the IRA.

America stared Britain and France down to stop them during the Suez crisis, threatening to tank their currencies by selling its reserves and ceasing aid otherwise.

If America is a pawn, it is a most unwieldy one, and this makes perfect sense. What one must realize is that an oath of fealty is only as good as the master's muscle.

Just as Britain could not have been forced to go to war by America, Britain really has little if any ability to force America into major decisions. We've got the resources and the muscle to access outside resources that we need to go our own way. The bonds between us in the relationship you propose can only be as strong as the personal convictions of whoever might be in power here at the time.

depends what you believe,
there ais probably hundreds of theories surrounding that war from the New World Order to the Israelis, (dont forget about Oil too)...i could be here all day so i shall not go through all the possible theories.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
The possibility is considerable, however feel free to post conclusive evidence if you're going to assert it that strongly and self-righteously dismiss other members as "babies".

America has in fact made convenient decisions for Britain at times, but it has also gone its own way at times.

The bonds between us in the relationship you propose can only be as strong as the personal convictions of whoever might be in power here at the time.

ATS is full of people new to understanding the difference between how we're told the world works and how it actually does.

Refering to anyone learning to 'digest new food (information)', as a 'baby', is older than the Bible and usually not taken as an insult.

Taught histories and actual histories, are very different animals. Most can and do accept this, untill you point out their own Nations 'Glories' were just scripted 'roles' by world ruling families. That's naturally hard for most, 'proud of their country', to 'swallow'.

Putting on a 'smoke and mirror show', to convince folk you represent them, and so avoid revolution, isn't restricted to local politics, but a most effective, ancient tool of Globalists.

While "The Coalition of the Willing" was locking up it's own citizens as terrorists, Australia was funnelling 100's of millions to Saddam through wheat sales, a fact made public by an American Senator, yet not important news to Americans, who should 'turn against us' for knowingly doing so, IF it wasn't all just part of 'the family plan'.

Britain, America and Australia are key members of a 'family' (well their 'true' rulers are), and like all siblings, will have spats, but also 'pretend to be fighting' inorder to get intell. from enemies of 'the family'.

To me, 'Americans' should be happy to know they aren't to blame for what 'America' is doing. As I don't blame 'Australians' for what 'Australia' does.

Bush was once asked why John Howard's popularity went up, on deciding to go to war, when his and Blair's fell. His answer was, "He married well." He laughed, the reporters laughed and all seemed to miss the profound truth of it.

As to, "whoever might be in power... at the time", for a young, modern 'democracy', the U.S. has suffered too many assassinations and 'unfortunate' deaths amoung it's power elite, for others to believe the U.S. Government represents 'the will of the people'.

Anyway, how would I post "conclusive evidence" of the course of human history, when 'experts' are still arguing about most historic and political anomolies?

A simple summation of what I'm getting at; Democracies are just a foil to protect the World's Ruling Royals from assassination by angry citizens. When you keep people's attention focused on following 'changing' governments, they tend not to notice those boring things, that 'stay the same'.

Many Americans can accept their Government was behind 9/11 to 'justify' a War on Terror, I simply suggest it's because their Government, like the rest of the coalitions', doesn't answer to 'the people' but more 'important' people of the world?

Pride doesn't lead to a fall, the blindness it can cause to humble truths, does. I don't want to see America fall, we're family, but worse than possibly falling with her, is inheriting her 'world's policeman role'.

I'm sorry my written realization, that this expansion on the topic is 'unpalatable' to most Americans, came across as 'self-righteous' instead of humourously self-adomishing for daring to publicly raise it.
I don't use 'smileys' to indicate humour because I'd rather folk like you feel free to respond than be accused of, 'not being able to take a joke', which is the real reason many people use them when they mean to insult.

I did and do not mean to insult. I am not the enemy, just a another pawn who lucked out on a vantage point and cares to warn fellow soldiers.

Blair HAD to go to war, true/false?

Blair didn't have to do anything. He is the leader of a separate and sovereign country. I have less respect for him since he caved to "peer pressure".

Here is my take on things.

It is plainly visible to any inquisitive student that Capitalism, as practiced, is merely a refined redux of feudalism, where green papers of no intrensic value stand in for land and corporations weild the power once held by landlords.

(it still comes down to land through vagrancy and loitering laws, which subtly establish that you are only permitted to be somewhere for commercial purposes. You have to pay, not only for goods, but to EXIST- you must buy or rent the place where you do nothing, and if you hang out too long in any other place without doing business, you'll be forced to leave)

The catch with this new feudalism is that there's no hereditary caste barrier. The people on top don't come down easily, but nothing necessarily keeps the people on the bottom from clawing their way to the very top, and this fractures the power structure. You can get your nobility from anyone- not just from a monarch.

Since you can rise to economic power from outside the system, and economic power can buy political power, there is no assurance of consistent loyalty by leaders (probably part of the reason that JFK got shot) so you need the ability to reign in the nation, either by force (including covert force- shooting Kennedy for example) or by leverage over the nation, since leverage over the individual in power is not necessarily assured.

I think this better accounts for the occasional departures from alliances than the head-fake idea. This also better accounts for tollerance of the departures because recourse is often limited to acts too strong for the given offense. For example, what might America do to Australia in punishment for the wheat deal? National consequences are too much obviously- we can't stir our alliances over a little thing like that. We could punish the man, if we have leverage on him, but we may not. Or we could punish others in a quiet economic manner so that they will fix it- for instance the power-brokers could have pressured GM not to import Holden vehicles, but that depends on who is on whose team and who has what abilities.

I operate under the assumption that the powers that be are generally greedy, power-hungry people who will do what benefits them most, and consequently I do not suspect that loyalty to the agreements of any power structure based on the Queen or City of London etc would be any great motivator to them where they had the practical ability through their wealth to mobilize greater forces and seize power for themselves.


The War on Terror has most certainly been to some degree conspiratorial in nature, although there are nationalist overlaps created by the half-true generality that a rising tide lifts all boats. Who is dragging around whom? That's a bigger question. It would take incredibly extensive study of the financial connections at work. It is not unrealistic however to suspect that America, by virtue of its wealth, had some influence in the matter.


Also, I stand by my conviction that citizens cannot disown the actions of corrupt governments anymore than technocrats like Eichman could disown the actions of Nazism. WE make the machine work. We work for the green paper, trading liberty for the luxury economy. We could free ourselves at will by foresaking our jobs and our IPODs and microwaves and leading simpler lives, or for that matter simply spilling blood in the streets if we didn't have the moral fiber to forsake comfort in the name of good.

All told, we've got the numbers, we've got the guns, and we're the chokepoint for the strategic resources upon which our masters depend- we're cranking the meat-grinder they're feeding us into.

I am not upset with you Suzy, nor do I entirely disagree as far as the general notion of a higher conspiratorial order in the world. I just found the statement a little simplistic- which is fair as full explanation of this would make for a ridiculously voluminous tome- but then also was a little put off by the repitition of "steak is for babies" because given the lack of subtextual context in typed exchanges it is difficult to ascertain attitude. I went with pattern recognition and mistakenly lumped you in with other people I've encountered on ATS who have had other intentions with somewhat similiar forms of posting. In so many words- if you meant no harm, sorry for misunderstanding that.

Originally posted by CX
Is Tony Blair bound by a secret agreement to go to war with the US?

False.

The nice thing about "secret" agreements is that no one is going to start screaming when you breach them. They also are not legally binding in any form.

Originally posted by suzy ryan
A simple summation of what I'm getting at; Democracies are just a foil to protect the World's Ruling Royals from assassination by angry citizens. When you keep people's attention focused on following 'changing' governments, they tend not to notice those boring things, that 'stay the same'.

You make an interesting argument.
Essitially, you are saying that the NWO is a cover story for the OWO (as in Old World Order). Interesting to take a quick aside and speculate where that really started. Rome? The British Empire? The Robber Barrons of the Industrial Revolotion? Is it Big Business or Shadow Government? Is there a difference? It the entire world caught in this net or are the turely "free" nations the ones we see being painted with the black (or Red, if you prefer) brush?

These are all interesting questions worth looking into, but no matter what the answers are the only way out remains the same... and to go there is to create one hell of a mess.