Blair's Support for War

[Anthony]

I would like to know what people thought of this. Big surprise? No surprise?

What are the implications for the future, will the rest of Europe follow in Support, or is that far-fetched?

Ant.

 

[pinkfloyd]

Tony Blair is a dirty $$$ whore .

 

[STING2]

Not a big surprise at all. Will the rest of Europe follow along? Unfortunately probably not given their poor history and record on these things in the past.

 

[diamond]

Tony Blair= A rigteous cat..and solid leader

dB9

 

[Zoomerang96]

tony = you and whos army

 

[TylerDurden]

He's given his support on the condition that the US goes through the UN. Same thing the Aussie PM told Bush on Friday.

If it has to be done, it's the right way to go about it.

Whether anyone else joins in depends on how Bush handles the UN and how good any evidence is. Apparently it's weak at best, but we'll see.

I'll still support it if the argument 'for' is good enough, but its still nowhere near good enough. Bush still doesn't have even enough support from his own people, not even his own father, and I believe Blair is having trouble convincing his own party, so... dunno. It still looks and smells dodgy to me.

 

[z edge]

Tony Blair is a dirty $$$ whore .

very intelligent comment, deserves...

 

[Rono]

He's given his support on the condition that the US goes through the UN. Same thing the Aussie PM told Bush on Friday.

If it has to be done, it's the right way to go about it.
./B]

That is beter than our goverment, they do not even need a UN aprovel to support the US.

 

[Rono]

very intelligent comment, deserves...

...and than you post a weapon of massdestruction,....we are innocent.

 

[Anthony]

,and I believe Blair is having trouble convincing his own part

Very true, STING2. In fact, 90% of the Labour government completely OPPOSE Bush's war on Iraq and Blair's support. That's not a sizeable majority, its almost the entire party, with only a few of Tony's cronies supporting him. Evidently, Tony Blair has NO grounds to support Bush, and has no democratic right. Not only is the Labour government against him, the majority of the country voted on a programme last night AGAINST getting involved the war. The percentage I think was 76% of those who voted.

Its not that I'm against the war against Saddam (which I am, anyway) its the fury I have for Blair's sheer audacity to ignore his own bleeding government. 'A war to restore democracy... with the destruction of our own' seems to be the policy here.

Ant.

 

[Anthony]

Oh, and Z_Edge; will you kindly refrain from posting huge photos of warplanes, at least in THIS thread. There was no anti-American sentiment, no anti-American comment that warranted something that only ends in people flaming each other.

Please, don't do it again in this thread.

Ant/

 

[cloudimani]

anti-Americanism seems alll the justification it takes for military action these days.
Bush is like a stupid little kid in a playground, he and Blair are like small kids with big mouths and big brothers, two small men in this world with a worrying amount of power.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I agree with Anthony - I'm disgusted that Blair is ignoring the Parliamentary Labour Party, the Labour Party as a whole and the general public. 71% of the public say no war on Iraq, countless CLPs are passing motions saying no war on Iraq and Labour MPs are demanding a debate on Iraq which Blair is refusing to hold. Britain claims to be democractic and yet 71% of people say they don't want their leader to do something and yet he wants to go ahead and do it regardless of their wishes.

It's horrible to see the leader of the Labour Party supporting this war mongering. It's what I'd expect from IDS and his Tory cronies but the Labour Party is supposed to be a social democratic party. Blair is going have a rough ride at party conference if he goes ahead with this attack. I've even heard a number of people in the party saying they think it'll be the end of his leadership if he goes ahead with it.

 

[diamond]

I think Blair will go down in history as a leader and not a poll-reader.

DB9

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I think Blair will go down in history as a leader and not a poll-reader.

DB9

I don't think leaders should rely on polling data for every decision they make (like a certain president who took a poll to find out where the public would prefer him to go on vacation...) but it's a lot more serious in this case - Blair isn't only opposed by 70+% of the British public but also by a majority of Labour Party members and a huge section of the Parliamentary Labour Party. He's not just ignoring a one-off poll which opposes war, he's ignoring anyone who speaks out against war, surely it's not a good idea for a leader to simply ignore anyone who opposes him.

I think he'll go down in history as a leader who attempted to destroy the Labour Party, and one who worked hand-in-glove with what Gerald Kaufman MP described as "the most intellectually backward American President of my political life."

 

[z edge]

Oh, and Z_Edge; will you kindly refrain from posting huge photos of warplanes, at least in THIS thread. There was no anti-American sentiment, no anti-American comment that warranted something that only ends in people flaming each other.

Please, don't do it again in this thread.

Ant/

Pinkfloyd has the right to say Tony Blair is a dirty $$$ whore, yet I don't have the right to post warplanes.

Hmmmmm

I never saw any public action when pinkfloyd said "bomb z edge now" No, nothing public.

I work around bombs so I don't appreciate that horrible comment when I work in a major war/terrorist target.

That plane was unarmed and not dropping any ordinance. It is a beacon of peace, and a beautiful aircraft. What the hell is so offensive about that?

Here, this is not a warplane:

 

[Anthony]

z_edge;

I apologise for the action (or lack thereof) beforehand concerning pinkfloyd, but I was not there and it was not my call - I can't be there at all times. Other Mods are, though, and if they didn't feel the need to do something then I imagine they had their reasons.

I am trying to keep this thread cool, with cooperation from both sides. I'm sorry, but I do not think I am being biased simply because I didn't punish pinkfloyd for a comment done a while ago. What I do think and know, is that a lot of people find pics of warplanes offensive, and they have made it known to me.

The comment about Tony Blair is one of opinion concerning a political leader, and is, needless to say, different from a picture.

If you disagree with me, we can talk it over. PM me, please. I think thats preferable over hijacking the thread.

Ant.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

That plane was unarmed and not dropping any ordinance. It is a beacon of peace

I have no desire to start a fight, but how in the world is a WAR plane a beacon of peace? It's purpose is to drop bombs. The purpose of bombs is to kill people. How in the world is that peaceful?

 

[diamond]

Z,
I think the Mods EXPECT more outta you than crazy Ivan Clayton Jr..ie-pinkfloyd.

Fizzing-

What President was that conducting the poll, on his vacation?..if it were GWBush Im sure he did it as a spoof on Clinton as Clinton did POLLS on EVERYTHING.. You might of missed the joke on that one

I wonder what the 'internal poll numbers' were when Winston Churchill uttered the famous line-
"NEVER
NEVER NEVER GIVE UP"..

Peace
Out
DB9

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Fizzing-

What President was that conducting the poll, on his vacation?..if it were GWBush Im sure he did it as a spoof on Clinton as Clinton did POLLS on EVERYTHING.. You might of missed the joke on that one

No, I was actually refering to Clinton I might dislike the Republican party but I'm no fan of the Democrats either.

But once again - we're not complaining that Blair has refused to listen to a poll conducted on the issue of attacking Iraq, we're concerned that he's outright ignoring anyone who speaks in opposition to him. He won't even hold a debate in Parliament, for goodness sake.

 

[diamond]

No, I was actually refering to Clinton I might dislike the Republican party but I'm no fan of the Democrats either.

But once again - we're not complaining that Blair has refused to listen to a poll conducted on the issue of attacking Iraq,

Fizzing-
Exactly my pt. GW wouldnt do that

1 issue at a time..I think this shows Tony's leadership w this issue.
I cant speak for the other issues..

DB9

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

1 issue at a time..I think this shows Tony's leadership w this issue.
I cant speak for the other issues..

DB9

But you're saying Blair's showing leadership, and yet all he's actually showing is that he's refusing to listen to his opponents. Besides, our Prime Minister isn't elected in order to be the only person who decides policy - we have a House of Commons who are expected to discuss and vote on policies/legislation.

If Blair really wants to show leadership then he should hold a debate and prove to his opponents that his preferred course of action is the correct one. He should attempt to convince the population of this country that he's right, instead of ignoring the fact that 70+% of them don't agree with him. Refusing to listen to those who disagree with you isn't a sign of a good leader - anyone can do that!

 

[deep]

I think he'll go down in history as a leader who attempted to destroy the Labour Party, and one who worked hand-in-glove with what Gerald Kaufman MP described as "the most intellectually backward American President of my political life."

This seems to be a growing consensus.

 

[diamond]

Some of the MOST intellectual elected officials were the poorest of leaders.

Some of the most brillant leaders didnt have the highest IQs.-
Examples-
FDR
Truman
Reagan
Teddy Roosevelt
GW Bush.

I think its cowardly to knock the current president in office
Perhaps we dont realize how tough the postion it is, being on the outside.
Its more glamouous/romantic to throw stones

DB9

 

[z edge]

I have no desire to start a fight, but how in the world is a WAR plane a beacon of peace? It's purpose is to drop bombs. The purpose of bombs is to kill people. How in the world is that peaceful?

Good point Fizzing,

My answer is um- simply that it is a deterrent that we have such an awesome power, albeit it's primary purpose is to destroy.

Thus on a larger scale, it's purpose is to maintain peace through deterrence.

If a nation realizes the power that can be unleashed on them should they strike other nations then maybe they will stay home and not destroy themselves and others.

I think it is important for others to realize that the US hunting season (1993-99) is now officially over. Our nation will not tolerate terrorist attacks like we did for 8 years, and we will not allow known terrorists/dictators/tyrants/murderers to refuse the world recognized conditions they agreed to when we spared them for their atrocities.

Though other nations have WMD, they are not the threat that Iraq is and will be should we allow them to continue to spit in the face of the UN and democracy.

Sometimes, peace is only achieved through war. Imagine if the world had not stopped Hitler.

 

[z edge]

z_edge;

I apologise for the action (or lack thereof) beforehand concerning pinkfloyd, but I was not there and it was not my call - I can't be there at all times. Other Mods are, though, and if they didn't feel the need to do something then I imagine they had their reasons.

Thank you, it is a dead horse brought up only for refrence.

I am trying to keep this thread cool, with cooperation from both sides. I'm sorry, but I do not think I am being biased simply because I didn't punish pinkfloyd for a comment done a while ago. What I do think and know, is that a lot of people find pics of warplanes offensive, and they have made it known to me.

I am all for keeping the threads cool.

As far as the planes being offensive, they are only posted when I find something offensive (such as what I brough up for refrence from pinkfloyd, and other comments where I have been called blasphemous and murderous, or cursed at by a diferrent mod)

I know you can't be everywhere, but I do find it disturbing when I am singled out on the forums and the stuff I mentioned above in paranthesis goes overlooked or is handled in private.

Back to the planes, if people find them offensive then I find that offensive that they find my planes offensive. SO you see, it kinda works itself out

I would bet $$$$$$ money that I have had more personal attacks or offensive insults made at me in here than anyone else, so I see no problem "freeing my mind" when everyone else is allowed to as well.

The comment about Tony Blair is one of opinion concerning a political leader, and is, needless to say, different from a picture.

If you disagree with me, we can talk it over. PM me, please. I think thats preferable over hijacking the thread.

Ant.

Well I respect your opinion, and I just posted my opinion which is not hijacking your thread?

I think you are doing a fine job though and I appreciate your concern on this issue.

BTW, I don't want war either. It is my opinion that it will happen and we have no other choice.

Rather than everybody (not necessarily you) lining up to take swings at Bush or America or even Blair over this, why aren't we looking at Bill Clinton who allowed Iraq to do whatever they wanted for the last 8 years? That includes kicking out the UN weapons inspectors and funding terrorism whil committing terrorism / genocide on his own people and developing weaponry that my end all of our lives someday.

Again, thanks Anthony and I will try to be a little nicer as long as people stop calling me murderous/blasphemous and wishing I would be killed aloud here in this forum.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

My answer is um- simply that it is a deterrent that we have such an awesome power, albeit it's primary purpose is to destroy.

Thus on a larger scale, it's purpose is to maintain peace through deterrence.

If a nation realizes the power that can be unleashed on them should they strike other nations then maybe they will stay home and not destroy themselves and others.

So by this logic then other countries should also be able to have those sort of weapons simply to deter others from attacking them. But isn't this how the nuclear arms race began? Isn't this why we now have many more countries developing nuclear weapons? Because they want them to act as a deterrent against attack? And how on earth is the world safer when more of its countries have such devastating weapons?

What if a country which has been threatened by America were to say it only has weapons in order to stop America from attacking it? Would that be permissible or is only the US which is allowed to have weapons as deterrents? Who decides who can keep weapons to deter other from attacking, and who isn't allowed to have weapons?

b]Though other nations have WMD, they are not the threat that Iraq is and will be should we allow them to continue to spit in the face of the UN and democracy.

Sometimes, peace is only achieved through war. Imagine if the world had not stopped Hitler. [/B]

If what concerns America is that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, then why not demand the return of weapons inspectors? Of course a key problem with that is that the last time they were allowed into the country it turned out that they were spies for the United States. But seriously - if America is concerned about Iraq's weapons, then why not call for the return of weapons inspectors, so that they have some solid evidence of Iraq's weapons capability before they launch a horrific military attack on the country?

And I don't think Iraq and Saddam Hussein are in any way comparable to Hitler and Germany in the 1930s.

 

[Anthony]

An Officer and a Gentleman

Thank you z_edge.

I will prevent people from aiming such calumny towards you. Courteousy, as you know, goes both ways.

Ant.

 

[pinkfloyd]

i don't trust even me

sorry for this blair comment from me , Z edge

right , i take my words back ,



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>runs away ......................

i just feel extremely nervous , i see no allies ( real allies , with help not just the usual words ) for usa in Iraq .


and DB9 ! , do you know if Iraq has a nuclear plant, reactor or something , thank u , and please answer , and don't use my old false name okey dokey ???????!!!!!!

 

[TylerDurden]

If a nation realizes the power that can be unleashed on them should they strike other nations then maybe they will stay home and not destroy themselves and others.

Good point. Now where were we... oh yeah, should the US invade Iraq or not...