# Is Tony Blair deluded?



## Rhisiart (Sep 13, 2006)

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?


----------



## fryke (Sep 13, 2006)

Well, how much _is_ the fish nowadays?


----------



## Rhisiart (Sep 14, 2006)

fryke said:


> Well, how much _is_ the fish nowadays?


It's an old Jewish phrase. Like will it matter?


----------



## Viro (Sep 14, 2006)

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?



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?


----------



## fryke (Sep 14, 2006)

rhisiart: That's what I _meant_.


----------



## Rhisiart (Sep 14, 2006)

fryke said:


> rhisiart: That's what I _meant_.


Yes. Sorry.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Sep 14, 2006)

rhisiart said:


> Is Tony deluded?



Surely "delusion" pre-supposes the existence of a brain! 

Tony hasn't used his brain on the issue of foreign policy for years. Bush speaks  Tony jumps  Britain's in the sh1t again!


----------



## reed (Sep 14, 2006)

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!!!


----------



## hawki18 (Sep 23, 2006)

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.


----------



## bbloke (Sep 25, 2006)

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.


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)...


----------



## hawki18 (Sep 25, 2006)

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.


----------



## Rhisiart (Sep 26, 2006)

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!


What hostages?


----------



## rubaiyat (Sep 27, 2006)

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.



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.


----------



## Rhisiart (Sep 27, 2006)

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.
> 
> ...


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?


----------



## spb (Sep 28, 2006)

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.



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).


----------



## spb (Sep 28, 2006)

rhisiart said:


> Is he a Dubya's poodle?



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?


----------



## bbloke (Sep 28, 2006)

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).


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?


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.


----------



## rubaiyat (Sep 28, 2006)

rhisiart said:


> I'm Welsh, not American.  And I am fat, not thin. However, I do have excellent taste, I'll grant you that.



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.


----------



## Rhisiart (Sep 28, 2006)

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.


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.


----------



## hawki18 (Sep 29, 2006)

bbloke 

I do not make up stuff as I go.  You can't remember or seem not to want too.  http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/15/spain.election/index.html
Zapatero and the Socialist Party were swept into power in Sunday's Spanish election, three days after commuter train bombings killed more than 200 people and injured 1,500 others.


----------



## bbloke (Sep 29, 2006)

hawki18 said:


> bbloke
> 
> I do not make up stuff as I go.  You can't remember or seem not to want too.  http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe...ion/index.html
> Zapatero and the Socialist Party were swept into power in Sunday's Spanish election, three days after commuter train bombings killed more than 200 people and injured 1,500 others.


Hang on there a minute, hawki18...

I did not accuse you of making things up (were you really referring to my post?), and accusing me of choosing to ignore the facts is a bit rich, especially as you seem to be ignoring all the supporting facts that I provide and you give us very little to substantiate your own claims.  I gave a fairly succinct list of why I disagree with your stated view, but could have provided much, much more evidence.  It sounds to me like you did not look at the links I provided or follow up leads from there, and so I shall elaborate.


1. Spain elected _socialists _to power, *not* _communists_.  There is a major difference!  The political spectrum in the US tends to be extremely narrow and is also very right wing.  I'm always amazed when people from the US allege that a group that is not as right wing as them is somehow communist!  How would you feel if non-Americans labelled both the Democrats and Republicans as fascists, for example?

2. You talked about the Spanish caving into terrorists, and yet the incoming Spanish PM was immediately talking about fighting terrorism.  He was committed to fighting in Afghanistan too.  This is not consistent with your assertion.

3. You mentioned Spanish hostages.  *Please show us evidence for this.*  I could be wrong, but I believe you were referring to Fillipino hostages, not Spanish...

4. The Spanish did not spontaneously pull out of Iraq because of one bomb attack.  The invasion and occupation of Iraq was extremely unpopular around the world (probably a lot more so than you realize), and it was very unpopular with the Spanish public.  

Taken from a British newspaper:
"Between 2 million and 3 million people took to the streets of Spanish cities to protest at the weekend in what was said to the biggest overall turnout in the world. As many as one in 15 Spaniards marched."

If you prefer CNN:
"Two recent opinion polls show overwhelming Spanish opposition to the war. A poll released on Saturday, taken by Spain's largest-circulation newspaper El Pais, showed *92 percent opposed to the war*, with *80 percent rejecting Aznar's stance.*"   
(That is very, *very *unpopular................)

Instead of, offensively, asserting that the Spaniards are somehow cowardly or caved in, you should look at the facts: there was massive opposition to the war in Iraq from the start.  That would push a government to a very weakened state, but the Aznar government carried on regardless.  They then compounded their problems through their handling of the bomb attacks in Madrid.  It was not that the public simply panicked, it was that the government's handling of the situation was the final nail in their political coffin...

5. Spain has a history of fighting with terrorist groups, such as ETA (on their home soil), for decades.  They do not roll over, as you seem to think.

6. If you truly think the war in Iraq was about terrorism, I think you are believing a lot of untruths, told to manipulate you.  Many suspected/knew it was not about weapons of mass destruction, and later a US report confirmed it.  Oh, maybe we need to go to war because Saddam Hussein had links to Al-Qaeda, then?  Nope, no evidence of that either.   So... why did we go to war in Iraq?   Hmmm, puzzling, eh?

7. This noble war on terrorism?  Again, look at the link (or how about a new one).  The invasion of Iraq has fuelled terrorism, not beaten it.  So, thanks for making the world a *less *safe place for everyone.

8. You then make a dig at the British about caving in too.  I pointed out it was British soldiers who killed a leading member of Al-Qaeda, who escaped from a jail that the US was looking after.    Doesn't sound to me like the British are backing off, in fact they were picking up the pieces when the US slipped up.   

9. The UK also has a long history of battling with terrorism, such as the Provisional IRA.  We've put up with attacks and hoax attacks in our shopping centers, areas of business, hotels, public gatherings, train stations, and so on.  It disrupted life for decades, and it touched everyone, whether people knew someone directly affected or whether we constantly had travel disrupted, security checks, bins (trash cans) removed from public places, or the like.  Despite all the many years of trouble, the British public's resolve stayed firm.  40,000 people have been injured during the troubles, and over 3000 people have been killed (see links 1, 2, and 3 and note how many civilians were killed, rather than terrorists or military personnel).  It was also particularly nice of the IRA to attack a memorial service, killing and injuring scores of civilians.  US support of the IRA was second only to Libya's.  And yet the US takes the moral highground on terrorism?........


I'm genuinely *not *slagging off America or Americans in stating all this.  My point is this: you, hawki18, do not have the evidence or the right to lecture other countries about being weak, nor to put the US on a pedestal.  Other countries have endured terrorism and conflict longer than the US and, furthermore, the US has, for decades, overthrown democratically elected governments, trained and supported terrorists, and waged war at will to suit its own political interests.  Osama bin Laden?  Remember when he was a "freedom fighter" who received US help?  He was fighting in Afghanistan to remove the Soviet influence.  Now his allies are fighting in another country (Iraq), which was invaded by a different nation (the US) wanting to influence the region.  Now he is a "terrorist."  Why?  Because he is inconvenient now, whereas he was an ally in the past.  Spreading freedom and civilization?  A recent report says torture in Iraq is now worse than it was under Saddam Hussein.  So, increased terrorism and increased torture due to US foreign policy?  Congratulations, you must be proud.

The overall situation is that we have a nation (the US) that invaded another nation (Iraq) without good reason, which armed rebels that it now calls enemies, that armed Iraq and then saw Iraq as an enemy nation, supports terrorist groups and overthrows democracies at will, and yet lectures the world in terms of good and evil and demands a war on terrorism.  The hypocrisy is appalling.  Again, I'm not trying to attack America or Americans.  I have a fondness of the country and the people, genuinely.  My criticism comes in when one nation (whether it is the US, the UK, or anywhere else) puts itself on a pedestal and claims to have the moral highground over others, blatantly ignoring their own history.  Under these circumstances, a country puts itself up for greater scrutiny and that is why the increased criticism surfaces too. When people "elevate their own country's importance" (shall we say...), I think things need to be said, as ill-informed and jingoistic beliefs tend to precede very bad events in world history...


----------



## Sirtovin (Sep 30, 2006)

Blair is like Churchill...and Bush... Well if I say it I will probably get flamed but he like Roosevelt in a way... He won't stop till the terrorist threat is elminated... That's all I will say... 

I am not a big fan of Bush right now even though I am a Republican etc... etc... but I am not a fool and would never vote for "CUT AND RUN..." Democrats...


----------



## reed (Oct 4, 2006)

bbloke,

  As usual, you have done your homework and made things "perfectly clear." I think somebody here just won't let go of a bone or seems so ignorant of the facts or just doesn't want to find out. Rumsfeld hates the facts (ask any high ranking general in the US Army) that is why we are in such big "doodoo" in Iraq. Way to go.... you commie, pinko, bedwetter.

 Who said "you are either with us or against us" first?

 Adolph Hitler


----------



## reed (Oct 27, 2006)

The mid elections are coming up in the USA. November 7th. We'll see if one or both Houses will change hands. If GWB/ Republicans win then we know there is something wrong. If the Democrats win the majority in the Senate or the Congress...then we know for sure there is something very wrong. Figure that one out.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Oct 27, 2006)

Maybe the US voters will come to their senses, nuke Washinton and everyone in it and live in peace and harmony with themselves and the rest of the world in a state of Anarchy.


----------



## reed (Oct 27, 2006)

Let us hope so Captain. 

We have enough nukes as it is though. Your servant, Dr. Strangelove


----------

