Is Tony Blair deluded?

Rhisiart

Rhisiart

Registered
You either love George W Bush, hate him or just accept that he's the President of the USA, so he should get some some respect for that fact alone.

Tony 'Teflon' Blair has declared he's leaving office next May to make way for some dumb ass second rate Brit politico.

Is Tony deluded? Is he a Dubya's poodle? Was he a successful stateman? Did he suck? Will he be missed? Do we give a rat's arse about the price of fish?
 
rhisiart said:
Tony 'Teflon' Blair has declared he's leaving office next May to make way for some dumb ass second rate Brit politico.

Is Tony deluded? Is he a Dubya's poodle? Was he a successful stateman? Did he suck? Will he be missed? Do we give a rat's arse about the price of fish?
Click to expand...

Given the amount of pressure he is under, coupled with the amount of flak he gets from the press for everything, does he really have much choice?
 
Tony (the phone-E) is deluded? Is the Pope Catholic?
He started out okay. I mean after J. Major and Madam T.things looked pretty good. Ouff! Time for a change!!
Iraq 2 is what broke the camel's back. No more delusions. Dommage. Maybe more, but you Brits have front row seats so you should know more.
I'm (we all are, in fact) still stuck with GWB......and that is ENOUGH!!!
 
Well Tony leaving office maybe the Uk can follow Spain's lead cave in to terrorist and elect a bunch of commies. I sure hope they don't but not going to hold my breath.
 
So, Tony Blair's speech at the party conference is tomorrow (Tuesday), if I am not mistaken... What do people think his reception will be like? Will he be applauded as a successful, outgoing Labour leader? Or will he be seen as a liability, someone who made some catastrophic errors of judgement (eg. the war in Iraq), and divided the party?

My own impression is that he wanted to leave a legacy. I think he wanted to be a successful (Labour) Prime Minister who was in office for a lengthy period and left some sort of mark on world history. I think he gambled when he sided so strongly with George W. Bush, and it backfired, as a lot of people are holding him to account now.

hawki18 said:
Well Tony leaving office maybe the Uk can follow Spain's lead cave in to terrorist and elect a bunch of commies. I sure hope they don't but not going to hold my breath.
Click to expand...
Well, apart from Spain not electing communists to power, the new Spanish PM talking about fighting terrorism, Spain having fought against terrorist groups such as ETA for decades, Spanish troops being present in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq having nothing to do with terrorism (if referring to Spain pulling out as caving in) and involvement in Iraq actually resulting in an increase in terrorism, British soldiers being the ones who recently killed a leading member of Al-Qaeda who escaped from US custody, and the UK having a long history of battling with terrorism (eg. the Provisional IRA, which received a lot of US support, by the way)...

;) :p
 
Spain caved and pulled there troops out iraq when they were told to pull out or else we are going to start killing the Spanish hostages! If that is not selling out what is. If this how most counties are going to handle he terroist issue the world is really in trouble.
 
hawki18 said:
Spain caved and pulled there troops out iraq when they were told to pull out or else we are going to start killing the Spanish hostages! If that is not selling out what is. If this how most counties are going to handle he terroist issue the world is really in trouble.
Click to expand...

You've run this line before, along with the ludicrous inability to differentiate politics left of Ghenghis Khan.

The previous Spanish Government fell for lying to the public.

Unlike Americans, who love being lied to on all matters.

So to stay on your good side I'll just add that you, a citizen of the gadamn greatest freedom loving nation in the world and the only real democracy, are fantastically sexy, thin, incredibly generous, have excellent taste and are obviously superbly well informed in all matters especially politics and foreign affairs.
 
rubaiyat said:
You've run this line before, along with the ludicrous inability to differentiate politics left of Ghenghis Khan.

The previous Spanish Government fell for lying to the public.

Unlike Americans, who love being lied to on all matters.

So to stay on your good side I'll just add that you, a citizen of the gadamn greatest freedom loving nation in the world and the only real democracy, are fantastically sexy, thin, incredibly generous, have excellent taste and are obviously superbly well informed in all matters especially politics and foreign affairs.
Click to expand...
I'm Welsh, not American. And I am fat, not thin. However, I do have excellent taste, I'll grant you that.

It's just that you said that the terrorists would kill Spanish hostages. Where were these hostages? Where were they being held captive?
 
hawki18 said:
Well Tony leaving office maybe the Uk can follow Spain's lead cave in to terrorist and elect a bunch of commies. I sure hope they don't but not going to hold my breath.
Click to expand...

What made the last UK election odd, is that the Labor party is a very left leaning party almost socialist in some regards. The real option for the UK was to move from the Labor party to the Conservatives (remember M. Thatcher).
 
rhisiart said:
Is he a Dubya's poodle?
Click to expand...

For as often as people talk about T. Blair as a US "lap-dog" I kind of feel that it is the other way around. When the US administration began making a case for war in Iraq I was wary. It was really Blair's speech (does anyone else remember this?) of the and the UK dossier that gave legitimacy to the argument.

Also, since G.W. Bush's election his administration's foreign policy has made a 180 degree turn. He stated in his first campaign that the US does not do, "nation building". After 9/11 this policy changed completely; however, Blair's policy has not. Bush is following Blair not the other way around.

It seems to me that statements of the UK and T. Blair becoming a tool of the US administration is really a rhetorical device to urge citizens of the UK to oppose US policy, not an actual statement of fact. Am I the only one to think this?
 
spb said:
What made the last UK election odd, is that the Labor party is a very left leaning party almost socialist in some regards. The real option for the UK was to move from the Labor party to the Conservatives (remember M. Thatcher).
Click to expand...
Hmm, I wouldn't say the Labour Party has very left wing tendencies anymore. It used to be much more left wing that it is now, but the standing joke these days is that we have two Conservative Parties, effectively!

spb said:
For as often as people talk about T. Blair as a US "lap-dog" I kind of feel that it is the other way around. When the US administration began making a case for war in Iraq I was wary. It was really Blair's speech (does anyone else remember this?) of the and the UK dossier that gave legitimacy to the argument.

Also, since G.W. Bush's election his administration's foreign policy has made a 180 degree turn. He stated in his first campaign that the US does not do, "nation building". After 9/11 this policy changed completely; however, Blair's policy has not. Bush is following Blair not the other way around.

It seems to me that statements of the UK and T. Blair becoming a tool of the US administration is really a rhetorical device to urge citizens of the UK to oppose US policy, not an actual statement of fact. Am I the only one to think this?
Click to expand...
I really don't think this is a tool to instigate opposition to US foreign policy. With regards to Iraq and Afghanistan, it was the Bush administration who pushed for war first. In fact, I also remember being absolutely convinced (during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq) that they had no intention of not invading and that all the talk of going through the UN and dialog with the Iraqi administration was a smokescreen in order to look more reasonable. To me, Bush wanted to invade Iraq first, and had to find a palatable reason for the public second. I strongly doubt the UK would have invaded either nation on its own or urged the US to do so, the UK only went in because the US decided to first.

I think there was a strong feeling that Blair would follow Bush's lead on matters of foreign policy, even when very unpopular back in the UK. This has angered many, as they feel the Prime Minister is more concerned with an ally's vision of foreign policy than that of the British population.
 
rhisiart said:
I'm Welsh, not American. And I am fat, not thin. However, I do have excellent taste, I'll grant you that.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are all the above :), but I was addressing Hawkie babe.

He tends to make it up as he goes along, on the off chance we won't notice.
 
rubaiyat said:
I'm sure you are all the above :), but I was addressing Hawkie babe.

He tends to make it up as he goes along, on the off chance we won't notice.
Click to expand...
Cross wires. A drag. Thanks for the reassurance.

It seems he ain't called Hawk for no reason. And there is at least another 17 of them?

Ye gads. Armageddon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top