Tony Blair

[tom_bombadil]

Now I ask you is our current labour PM really a good one. He is supposed to be left wing but Labour under his control are right. He is always causing problems for the country (firefighters) and he is highly irritating. Plus he gets us involved in American affairs!

[Ithrynluin]

I don't like his recent decisions concerning Iraq,but otherwise I don't know what kind of a politician he is.That's why I'm not going to vote.
I'll see what everyone has to say.:)

[Mormegil]

I think Tony Blair is Ok. He's certainly better than the other options at the moment. IDS can't even keep his own party together at the moment.
And William Hague was never seriously going to win the last election.
The Liberal Democrats are not a big enough party to win an election yet.

So I think Tony Blair is ok, he has stabilised the economy and improved the country since the dark days of Tory rule. I see no problem with his slightly right wing politics. (Remember it was Labour's left wing ideas that led to nearly 2 decades of Conservative government.)

As for the firefighters, that is not TB's fault. They are being way too greedy, demanding a 40% pay rise. If they get it then everyone else (nurses, teachers, armed forces, police) will also go on strike and ask for ridiculous wage demands. The firefighters have been offered a 16% rise, they should accept it and stop being so greedy.

[Proudfoots]

Are you sure that you meant to ask about Tony Blair?

Wouldn't it be easier to ask about George Dubya, who seems to be the brains behind Tony Blair recently (and that is a scary, scary thought)

'foots

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Mormegil
The firefighters have been offered a 16% rise, they should accept it and stop being so greedy. They did accept 16%. However, Tony and co. Blocked it. They will only allow the Firefighters to have 4%. The other thing that he wants is less Firefighters to do the work.

[Legolam]

I think TB is a much better PM than any of the other options at the moment. Sure, he acts like a president sometimes (but that's what effective opposition is meant to stop, so it's more a reflection on them) but he's brought economic stability to this country when other's (like America) are suffering recession. Also, on the point of being controlled by Dubya, do you not think it's the other way around?

BTW, on the subject of the firefighters, the 16% wasn't blocked, they weren't given enough time to consider a response (2 hours if I remember correctly). The employers agreed to something that hadn't been costed properly. Personally, no offence to firemen intended, I don't think they deserve to earn more than teachers or junior doctors for doing a partly unskilled part-time job.

[Rogue666666]

Personally, the last good PM you had was Margeret Thatcher, though some of you might disagree. And whats wrong with getting involved in 'American affairs'? The whole gulf war was fought by an 'international coalition', and though I don't put much stock in 'international coalitions' it wasn't just an American affair.

Finally, I hope you never forget that if America hadn't got 'involved' in BRITISH affairs , or Russia had just stopped fighting, then Operation Sea Lion would proabably have gone through and your little Home Guard would have been grinded into raw meat. Then you woudn't even be here to complain about the most recent Fuhrer. So shutup and stop complaining when your prime minister tries to help an old friend. Maybe he has a better memory than the rest of you.

[TheFool]

When has Britain not been involved in 'American affairs'? It is an ex-British colony after all :p . Something that annoys me about Mr Blair is his mock sincerity when speaking in public, and all his spin doctoring. And William Hague used to tear him apart in PM Questions :D . But on the whole he's good; young (relatively), ambitious, sleaze-free...

[Legolam]

the last good PM you had was Margeret Thatcher Seriously?

We are talking about the "Iron Lady" here? The one who implemented a tax only in one part of the country (Scotland) as a trial because no-one voted for her there anyway? The one who decimated our industries, health service and police, and ruined the economy?

When you compare TB to MT, I know which one I'd rather have.

[Wolfshead]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
the last good PM you had was Margeret Thatcher
I'm not even going to start on how irrelevant past events, WWII and so on, are to the current situation. You can not make important decisions about war thinking about owed favours, if indeed there were any. But of course, America was too kind in saving us in WWII, so we should go and help you in a pointless war over oil :rolleyes:

But about Maggie Thatcher being a good PM. I can tell you don't live in the UK. She destroyed industries and was an annoying bat amongst other things. Basically what Legolam said, there's no point in repeating it.

Tony Blair, in my opinion, is a good PM. He knows what he's talking about, most of the time. If only he could get rid of Cherie, who is only causing him embarrasment, and keep promises once in a while, he would be an incredibly good PM.

[Great Khan]

From what ive heard tony blair is a pretty good PM (really good compared to our john howard in Australia) and he doesn't seem to do things to rashly

[Gloer]

Being british is all about shopkeeping, bookeeping and money.

Why do people want back the fool's paradise that was created before Thatcher? The idea of publicly owned industries is better achieved through voluntary ownership of publicly listed companies.

[FREEDOM!]

Who is Tony Blair i don't understand??!??!

[Wolfshead]

You really ought to know, seeing as he's the Prime Minister of the USA's strongest ally. And even if you didn't know that, I'm sure it was easily picked up from reading the rest of the thread.

[Rogue666666]

CraigSmith, YOU DISGUST ME. Ok, so maybe I don't know enough about Thatcher, though I'm willing to bet that the media in Britain ( which I won't even get into how bad they are) had a big part in making her look bad. Especially because she UPHELD her policies, kept a STRONG rule over her country, and didn't even flinch when one of YOUR colonies tried to remove itself from the British commonwealth. Our President Clinton, ( Don't even get me started on that sleeze bag) used the media to make it look like there was an economic crisis, so that he could sway the polls. Unfortunately, he didn't improve the economy at all. He just cut the military in half, wasted the money, and increased the national debt.

NOw, here is were I get sick. You pretty much stated that our helping you in war means nothing, that the sacrifice our men made for your survival was a waste of time, and that what we did for YOU is completely irrelevant. You shoudn't help us, because you don't owe us anything, is that right? What about friendship? Shoudn't nations help eachother because they are allies, and have been for centuries? MAN, maybe you should have your nation overun by terrorists, attacked by foreign pwoers, and your women and children murdered in cold blood. Then when your leaders scream for assistance and no one listens, remember what you said.

P.S. I'm not saying that the current situation is as bad as the afore mentioned above, I'm simply giving an illustration.

[Legolam]

OK firstly, I can't believe someone didn't know who Tony Blair is. Sort of sums up the problems Americans have with the rest of the world. This isn't meant to insult anyone, but when they don't know who the leader of their main ally is, you can see why most of the world sees America as being ignorant of anything outside their borders. This is leading to a lot of grief throughout the world because America is being seen as not even wanting to care about what anyone else thinks.

Secondly, I want to defend Craig from what Rogue6666666 just said.
Ok, so maybe I don't know enough about Thatcher No, I don't think you had to live here when she "ruled". She did uphold her policies and was a strong ruler, but they were the wrong policies and did a lot of damage to our country.

You pretty much stated that our helping you in war means nothing No, that wasn't the intention. Everyone here is very grateful that America got involved in WWII, but you can't expect to be blackmailed because of some favour that was done over 50 years ago. And, if I remember correctly, America didn't actually get involved until it was directly attacked (watch Pearl Harbor if you don't know that part).

You shoudn't help us, because you don't owe us anything, is that right No, we shouldn't help you because what you're planning is WRONG.

MAN, maybe you should have your nation overun by terrorists, attacked by foreign pwoers, and your women and children murdered in cold blood. Then when your leaders scream for assistance and no one listens, remember what you said Thanks.



EDIT: I just read that last quote again, and I realised that that is what America is planning to do to someone else very soon. Kinda ironic don't you think?

[Gloer]

Americans are naive

Let us not forget that!

American people tend to think that there is real evil in the world that one can fight against and even win.

I wonder when they realize the evil that this misconception leads to.

[Rogue666666]

Ok, to be fair, I will admit that Americans have a VERY limited world view. I know many of them. But this does NOT mean that we are blind.

I dont know if its just your media, or your simply stupid, but the U.S does not murder women and children. We are not complete evil as you might believe. If we were, we would just use our nuclear arsenal and wipe Iraq off the face of the earth. May I remind that Suddam Husaine himself has cuased a MILLION times more harm to his own people than we ever have.

NO,were not trying to blackmail you. If everyone had your attitude Britain would have NO allies and might not even still exist as a nation.

For that matter, who are you to judge MY countries actions as wrong?

Is it wrong to want to help people who live their everyday lives under an evil and cruel dictator?

And then you may ask, " Why is it Americas business?"

I'll tell you why. Because NO ONE ELSE HAS THE GUTS. NO other nation would attempt to help these suffering people."

[Gloer]

USA would better serve it's goals if it follows the procedures that might legitimize the use of force against other states.

If USA does not care about due processes it sets a prejudicative for all other nations.

I have faith that american leadership in the end has patience to do things right by doing the right things.

On the otherhand present government has shown weak understanding of contractual obligations and it's fundamental meaning. This has made USA an unreliable party in international relations undermining the value of american promises and narrowing the possibileties of USA using alternatives to brutal force.

I am not against invasion to Iraq and elimination of Saddam.
There are already grounds for that since 1998 when Iraq broke the peace treaty by not co-operating with the UN inspectors. This breach was material since ABC-weaponry is of material strategic importance. This is clearly shown by North Korean situation.

I just do not understand why USA selected to try to find some new reasons for attack. Maybe it is just to bluff Saddam to think he can avoid war by playing games.

PS. Saddam is not evil. He is ruthless, proud and cunning, but not evil.

[Rogue666666]

Ok, would you answer these questions. WHO has the right to set processes for the United States to go through? Why should we wait for the approval of the international community? Do you think that Saddam is going to wait for their approval before he attacks someone with weapons of mass destruction?

[Gloer]

WHO has the right to set processes for the United States to go through?

The United States is a sovereign nation.

Why should we wait for the approval of the international community?

USA has ratified the United Nations charter. UN charter allows war only as defense under attack or if the Security Council gives it's specific approval. This is the process USA has decided to follow. I would expect that US government follows the process the legislative of the USA has decided.

Do you think that Saddam is going to wait for their approval before he attacks someone with weapons of mass destruction?

Interesting. No I don't think Saddam would waite. But then... Do you think that US government is going to wait for UN security council approval before USA attacks someone with weapons of mass destruction?

That is the major question.

[Snaga]

Hmm.... Saddam Hussein really does seem to be waiting a very long time to attack someone with weapons of mass destruction. I hadn't noticed but thanks.

What could he be waiting for? Perhaps... I dont know... perhaps American soldiers to invade? Perhaps when he's backed into a corner?

[Rogue666666]

OK, ok, I admit that we started the whole U.N thing, though I wish to God we hadn't. :)

If the U.S ever attacked anyone with weapons of mass destruction
( i.e. Thermo Nuclear Missles)
it would only be after the aggressor had struck first.

Snaga, there are two possible explanations for suddam waiting so long.

The first bieng that he doesn't HAVE the weapons, the second bieng that he is either moving them into position or is waiting for a strategic moment to use them.

Whatever his reasons, even if he doesnt have them yet, that fact that he is developing them should be enough reason to attack, or at least do SOMETHING. Have you perhaps seen The Sum of All Fears? Though the situation is very different, the consequences of wiating too long can be very drastic.

May I remind you that their were many who said Wait! , right before The Blitzkrieg, and Pearl Harbor. Their always seem to be people who whish to blind themselves to the obvius facts right up until it is to late to do anything at all. God forbid that happen in this situation.

[Gloer]

Isn't there a dual intrepretion for the sentence
"USA attacks someone with weapons of mass destruction" ?

1. USA attacks with weapons of mass destruction
or
2. someone has weapons of mass destruction and USA attacks him

???

[Rogue666666]

Attacking with weapons of mass destruction would be something like luanching a nuclear missle strike on Baghdad. Of course, the U.S has no such thing in mind, not even as a remote possibility.

[Snaga]

Actually you are mistaken. In the last Gulf War the use of nuclear weapons was contemplated by the US in response to the use of chemical/biological weapons by Iraq. In fact, according to Colin Powell, they settled on a plan of conventionally bombing some dams and unleashing floodwater that would have probably have killed about 250,000 people. So humane!

That kind of puts a different angle of the Weapons of Mass Destruction label doesn't it? So called conventional weapons are quite capable of wiping people out of a wide scale.

Similarly, does the use of depleted uranium in 'tank-buster' bombs count? If you are an Iraqi with cancer, you might think the answer was yes.

Still its all good. Saddam may or may not have weapons. We should attack anyway. Just in case. Yes... just in case an impoverished third world nation should decide to use technology it doesnt have to attack a country that could completely obliterate it with its little finger. I like it...

By the way shouldn't Bush declare the US military budget as election expenses?

PS I didnt vote on the poll, as Blair (remember him?) is neither good nor a loony... sane but ****!

[Rogue666666]

Your an idiot snaga if you think he doesnt have nuclear wepons or is in the process of making them. I've spoken with a nuclear scientist about the possibility of building a Nuclear weapon. He admits that if he had the rescources, he could build one, and that he definetly was not the smartest kid on the block. Its not hard to find the people, all you need is the rescources. And believe me, Saddam can get the rescources. Just because the people live in a state of complete poverty doesnt mean that the leader does. Sovite Union ring a bell?

He has hundreds of elaborate palaces, and tons of oil in his country. Besides that, there are literaly thousands of arab millionaress that would support him. Even Osama Bin Laden was rich. NO, foolish it would be to assume that he had no such weapons. Maybe you won't be convinced until a city erupts into nuclear fire, but for the milions dead it will already be to late.

Hopefully our current world leaders aren't so STUPID as to let that happen.

A plan, your accusing the U.S of making horrible plans? Thats all they were , is plans! Yes, they would have killed a lot of people, but the point is, WE DIDNT GO THROUGH WITH THEM. YA, we had plans to blow up the whole Soviet Union posibly killing hundreds of millions, but did it ever happen? NO. O, and we used depleted Uranium. Well, I'm sure that the milions who might die in an attack by Saddam would really care about the deplted uranium we used in attacking military targets. And, if not for our threats of the use of weapons of mass destruction, Saddam would have had ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with gassing American boys.

Our president is finally setting his foot down, and instead of trying to please everyone, which is an impossible thing to do, he's going to do whatever it takes to defend our country. Anf you sorry losers believe that we should wait for one of our cities should be blown to ( insert 4-letter word here) before we do anything, the YOU ARE WRONG.

[Legolam]

A plan, your accusing the U.S of making horrible plans? Thats all they were , is plans! Yes, they would have killed a lot of people, but the point is, WE DIDNT GO THROUGH WITH THEM. YA, we had plans to blow up the whole Soviet Union posibly killing hundreds of millions, but did it ever happen? NO Are you willing to extend the same principles to Saddam? How sure are we that he intends to go through with any plans he may or may not have? Like Snaga says, do we attack anyway, just in case? Should the Soviet Union have attacked the US all those years ago, just in case? Should India have attacked Pakistan last year with nuclear weapons, just in case? No, because that's just stupid.

Our president is finally setting his foot down, and instead of trying to please everyone He's trying to win an election, that's what he's doing. Don't kid yourself he's doing this for a good reason.

Anf you sorry losers believe that we should wait for one of our cities should be blown to ( insert 4-letter word here) before we do anything, the YOU ARE WRONG. I'm not saying wait till then, but at least wait until we have some hard evidence. A hunch by George Bush really isn't enough.

[Snaga]

Saddam has no capability to hit the United States or Britain with a missile of any kind, conventional or otherwise. All the experts agree he is years away.

Saddam Hussein has no nuclear weapons. Everyone says he doesnt have them. Including the CIA!

So we're left with rhetoric. And supposition. And scare stories.

Bush should drop the family vendetta.

[Wolfshead]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
CraigSmith, YOU DISGUST MEGee, I'm glad some people appreciate me, that's really kind of you. I think I ought to hit back slightly here, even though this was a while ago.
Originally posted by Rogue666666
Ok, so maybe I don't know enough about Thatcher, though I'm willing to bet that the media in Britain ( which I won't even get into how bad they are) had a big part in making her look bad. Ok, so our media is bad, apparently. Granted, the tabloids are a complete waste of space. But, the BBC strikes me as somewhat better than the American media, where CNN puts out what the government wants. The BBC does not broadcast what the government wants us to hear, it's what is actually happening. Anyway, there's another thread in GOP about that.
Originally posted by Rogue666666
NOw, here is were I get sick. You pretty much stated that our helping you in war means nothing, that the sacrifice our men made for your survival was a waste of time, and that what we did for YOU is completely irrelevant. You shoudn't help us, because you don't owe us anything, is that right? What about friendship? Shoudn't nations help eachother because they are allies, and have been for centuries? Does the government change the history lessons in America as well? You did NOT enter the war to save us. You hummed and hawed, even though you could see what Hitler was doing was atrocious, and did not enter until your navy got hammered by the Japanese. Then it was personal, or so to speak, so you helped to win the war. If we hadn't been there, Hitler would have been making moves on the USA, so without us, you would have had a difficult time. If we had been toppled, which may have happened eventually, you would have had a very difficult time fighting the Nazi's.

Ok, so because you eventually got round to fighting the Nazi's we should help you in a war about oil? Why do you think Bush is so keen to attack Iraq? Because he's got a tyrannical rule over his country (no, not Bush)? Because he may or may not have weapons of mass destruction? If that's the case, why Iraq first? Why not Syria, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan, or any number of other countries? Sure, I can accept the world would be a better place with Hussein, but it is largly about oil. Bush and Cheney both have major links to the oil industry, and so does someone else in the Bush administration, but I can remember his name now. Iraq has a significant percentage of the worlds oil reserves, having a Bush-friendly ruler there would be very beneficial for the US economy. Call me a cynic if you like, but that's what I believe.

This war against Iraq is not even guaranteed to succeed. You'll notice that after the Gulf War, the Iraqi people were in an even worse state than they were before. They helped America and Britain fight Saddam, then we pull out, and leave these people to the wrath of their ruler. Kind of a bad move, don't you think? And think of the thousands of people that would inevitably die in Iraq, are they better off now than dead?
Originally posted by Rogue666666
Your an idiot snaga if you think he doesnt have nuclear wepons or is in the process of making themFunny that, Bush is saying that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. If he's so sure Saddam has got them, why doesn't he tell the Weapons Inspectors where they are? So far, none have been found. What happened to innocent till proven guilty?

This war will not succeed without the backing of Europe, I think. Even Britain might pull out, Tony Blair and a couple of others are about the only people in government here that actually want a war. Yes, even the Labour party is being split by Iraq. Plus the rest of Europe doesn't want to go either.

I hope you enjoy your oil, and thousands of dead people you will get if you attack Iraq.

[Rogue666666]

OK, sorry I havent replied, I've been busy.

OK, first, as I stated before, it would be a few billion dollars cheaper to build a pipeline to Alska, OR to the gulf of Mexico, which contains the world largest deposit of oil. The reason were going to attack Iraq is not because of the oil. Its becuase he is a tyrannical ruler who if given the chance will murder MILLIONS of innocents. Believe me, Saddam has killed twice as many of his own people as we have.


OK, do you really think that the methods of Saddams attack would be a missle snaga? Thats ridiculuos. Hundreds of millions of shipping crates arrive in Americas major cities EVERY YEAR. Its impossible to check even 2% of all of them. Can you imagine what would happen if Boston errupted into nuclear fire?

And since when Snaga, did you start believing what the American CIA tells you, hmm?

Now, don't get me started on CNN. I absolutely HATE them. In fact, when I lived in Holland is was very refreshing to have a much more reliable news group like the BBC. Unfortunately, no news group can help bieng at least somewhat biased. Especially if that group doesn't like the current leader.

Finally, here is my explanation why we don't attack all the nations you mentioned. Becuase, if a nuclear attack came from one of THOSE countries, it would most likely be in the form of a missle, which would be declaring nuclear war on the United States. Were pretty sure that none of those nations leaders are going to do that, but just in case, were starting up a nuclear defense shield. Saddam on the other hand would do something like ship a bomb into America, and probably try to make sure no one blames him for it. He is a VERY dangerous terrorist who has the rescources to cuase mass death, and the last thing we want is for him to strike.

Sorry for those, umm, personal attacks. I jost got a little heated when you pretty much stated that everything America does is for its own selfish self, and that we pretty much just want to rule the world. So what is England? Perfect? You were the ones with the massive empire, not us.

[Gloer]

Britannia rule the waves!"

That wish - unfortunately - is not acceptable under the international law.

High seas are free and open to all for free trade and battle ships too.

Brittannia did have a problem with that idea. So ruling the waves is more an ideal situation when the fact was that Britannia rules the coasts and strategic harbours on trade routes and had an extensive fleet that could reach anywhere.

American Empire - The USA has an even wider reach. USA does not need presence of it's officials and military to control a remote region in the way the British did. This leads to thinking that US has less influence. It is not so. The British had to send occupation troops to India and govern directly many of the colonies because there was no infrastructure to serve the need of the trade and industry. USA usually has the local population organize themselves to trade: That is easier these days since trade contacts, industrial production and their infrastructure needs are nothing new. It was quite new when the Brits sailed to India.

The British also needed to have presence of garrison to make sure that there was no disturbances. USA does not need a garrison present. Everybody knows that a US base is more a sitting duck in a hostile country. The real power is the air force first strike ability and reach. USA can hit anywhere hard to interfere which means any leader must really carefully evalue his choises.

[Wolfshead]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
So what is England? Perfect? You were the ones with the massive empire, not us. Britain, my friend, Britain. As much as I'd prefer Scotland to be independent, it was the British Empire that ruled a large part of the world. Not a bad achievement considering the size of our island.

Concerning our dear friend, Saddam, we don't know how he would attack exactly, although some kind of bomb is most likely. But the fact remains, no evidence of his weapons program has been found yet. Without any proof, the rest of the UN will not consent to war, and if America goes it alone, they lose some vital allies.

[Rogue666666]

Ahh, but what if we do get the 'consent' of the UN? Already your Prime Minister has said he will support us, and The French government is behind us. I only pray that the war will be VERY quick and that maybe we can just move in and remove Saddam with minimal bloodshed.

You see, I believe that Bush has proof of Saddams weapons of mass destruction. But there are most likely two reasons he isn't telleing the world about them. The first, and most likely, is that it came from a source that is still operating, or that is internatonaly illegale , like a spy in the Iraqi goverment. Revealing this information would probably cause the death of that operative and the 'international community' might scream at us for having spies in Iraq. That of course would be ridiculuos, since EVERY nation has its operatives.

The second reason is that the threat is IMMEDIATE and that giving the information to the UN so that they could debate about it, and decide whether they wanted to believe it or not, or whether it was REAL evidence would be waste if time.

[tom_bombadil]

Tony Blair is not human he is a poodle who follows George Bush about doing everythinbg he says we should all vote form IDS in the next election

[Heathertoes]

An American wrote:

'Finally, I hope you never forget that if America hadn't got 'involved' in BRITISH affairs , or Russia had just stopped fighting, then Operation Sea Lion would proabably have gone through and your little Home Guard would have been grinded into raw meat.'

SPARE ME!! - You wonder why no-one likes you?!

Read a History book. Operation Sealion was defeated in 1940. Remind me when you joined the war. ;)

[tom_bombadil]

One Major reason why i hate america is they spend more money everyt year on chewing gum then they do on books.
The 100% american is 99% idiot

[Rogue666666]

The 100% american is 99% idiot

Right, thats a GREAT way to prove your point.

And british people are complete idiots who can't hold on to their empire and scream bloody murder every time their PM does something they don't like. The only good invention they ever came up with is fish and chips, and they are so controlled by their goverment that they have to have a license to own a TV.


If we all went around that way nothing would EVER be solved.

OK, I did get my history screwed up, which I rarely do.

My point is still the same. Without american involvement you would be saluting a Nazi flag. But we've moved on from that point in the discussion.


P.S. Americans entered in 1941 :D

[Heathertoes]

Yes, we complain when the PM does something we don't like - how ridiculous of us. We should be more like you - bowing down to the flag and accepting whatever that monkey in a suit tells you. By the way, as well as inventing fish and chips we also invented your country. Ever noticed the name of the language you speak?

[tom_bombadil]

We didn't hold on to our empire because the countries wanted independence and if irember rightly america didn't get involved because of the british but because of the japenese. We are not stupid we are probably the most intelligent people in the world the British army is 100% better trained then the american one. And you the americans where a british territory. You speak our language you are jealous of our monarchy and you even send some of your troops to be trained by us.

[Heathertoes]

Originally posted by tom_bombadil
you are jealous of our monarchy
Whoa there! Even an American wouldn't be stupid enough to be jealous of our monarchy. There are a total shambles and must be disposed of.

[Snaga]

Frankly its a bit silly to try to 'prove' Britain is superior to America. It pretty pathetic to respond to Rogue6666 who hates anyone who isnt American, who thinks Britain is **** etc etc. His posts make him sound like a complete jerk. I'm guessing he's not as bad as that really. But there's no point in stooping to his level.

I like America. I'm gonna marry an American. ( Yay!:D ) I am quite happy to conduct good natured banter about relative merits of our two countries, but spare me the shouting matches.

I don't see that means I have to agree with American foreign policy. Britain and America have been friends for a very long time, but it shouldn't follow that we have to blindly follow each other into every conflict. America didnt send troops to the Falkland Islands. Britain didnt send troops to Vietnam.

[Legolam]

Ditto Snaga.

Maybe we should get back on the topic of this thread, which is whether Tony Blair is a good thing or now. We can save the Britain/America-bashing for another thread?

[FREEDOM!]

Originally posted by tom_bombadil
One Major reason why i hate america is they spend more money everyt year on chewing gum then they do on books.
The 100% american is 99% idiot

Do you mean me??????

[Lantalasse]

Originally posted by Rogue666666
Ahh, but what if we do get the 'consent' of the UN? Already your Prime Minister has said he will support us, and The French government is behind us. I only pray that the war will be VERY quick and that maybe we can just move in and remove Saddam with minimal bloodshed.


The second reason is that the threat is IMMEDIATE and that giving the information to the UN so that they could debate about it, and decide whether they wanted to believe it or not, or whether it was REAL evidence would be waste if time.


First of all, France is not supporting a war. i think the message given by president shirac and pm shreuder was quite clear. secondly, no the war is not going to be quick, and to answer something you said before saddam is not a terrorist. he is a ruthless dictator but so are most these days-oh also, saddam was established with the blessings of the us and britain as were the taliban .
"a corrupt democracy(i'm wondering, who am i implying...) is even worse that a totalitarian state because the illusion of being free is worse than directly not being free".


i'm sick and tired of people who think was is neccesary or justifiable. war is always wrong and while you sit in front of your pc, with your internet connection and debate and attack everyone who is not american and doesn't want to go to war there are people dying in 3rd world countries-and in iraq especially. you are not saviours. if you were saviours you would try and help other poorer countries improve and flourish not increase their debt(argentina ring a bell?)

oh and something else, isn't very convenient that venezuela suddenly has problems with the gov't and can't export oil??

anyway, the original link was for blair and i think the person who said he is "sane but ****" sums up my view

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WAR FOR PEACE BECAUSE ONE WORD ERASES THE MEANING OF THE OTHER.

cheers

[Rogue666666]

This is funny.

While I was away from the discussion it seems that those who disagree with me have begun to degenerate their arguments into usless attacks against my person. Maybe I'm wasting my breath.

Ok, first, if you carefully review the thread it is MOST clear that it was not I, but Tom_Bombadil that began his viscous attack on the United States and americans, immediately after his post I replied that if we all went around that way we wouldn't solve anything. SO DON"T JUMP ON ME.

The United States once and for all is NOT giong into Iraq for oil. If you believe that would be the purpose of another war, then you are BADLY misinforrmed.

The war, plus the following ocuppation and rebuilding of Iraq, which of course America will have to pay for, is going to be FAR more expensive then you can imagine. It would be cheaper for Bush to build twenty pipelines to Alaska then go to war.

The Billions of dollars that we will lose should immediately prove that our intentions have NOTHING to do with making money.

As I have stated in other threads, the United States is going to war with Iraq to SAVE LIVES. Imagine the cost of life if a major city was burned to the ground by a nuclear weapon? MILLIONS. I'm not saying that any one life is more important than others, I'm saying that a war with Iraq would most DEFINITLY save countless lives.

And to just go on blindly ignoring an insane TERRORISTS, and TERRORISTS I call him for he can be nothing else, who will, if he hasn't already, posess nuclear power is insanity in itself.

America values lives as its HIGHEST commodity. Not Oil.

[Emowyn]

Hmmm, not sure. I mean a GOOD leader wouldn't endanger his people just cause he's bored would he? Nah I'm not convinced that Tony Blair is a good leader, I think his head's just got to big and he needs to take a holiday or somthing. I hear Iraq's quite good this time of year, providing you hide in fear all the time......

[Rogue666666]

I mean a GOOD leader wouldn't endanger his people just cause he's bored would he?


No, he woudn't. And Tony Blair is going to endanger the lives of your contries soldiers instead of waiting around for his citizens to get blown to pieces by one of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Which is more than you can say for the French president.

Be proud that your PM has at least the guts to stand up to a lot of his OWN people who would rather sit around and get blasted before defending themselves.

Though I still think he isn't a good PM. Especially becuase he seems to not really have a will of his own. :cool:

[Daniel]

I have mixed feelings about Blair. He isn't the best PM Britian has ever seen, but he could certainly be worse. I agree with some things he does and disagree with others. In the poll I voted for the "Good PM" option, since it came closer to me feelings regarding him than the other choice, but I'm really closer to the middle on this issue.