BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors

Subject: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 03:20 PM

More than 50 former British Diplomats have signed a letter to Tony Blair criticising his Middle East policy.

The 52 ambassadors said it was time for the prime minister to start influencing America`s "doomed" policy in the Middle East or stop backing it.

They told Mr Blair they had " watched with deepening concern" as Britain followed the US lead in Iraq and Israel and called for a debate in Parlaiment.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 04:14 PM

Good for them! I have another great headline to add to yours:

Bush Buggered by British Bulldogs

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 04:37 PM

I'm not familiar with the word "blated". Is that British slang? Or just a mistake? What does it mean exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 04:38 PM

I think he meant "baited".

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 04:38 PM

Or "blasted". Yeah, that's probably it.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 04:45 PM

Blasted it is, pure guiness, litte Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 04:48 PM

Do not let us stray from the point, this was a broadside Blair could have done without, kicking a man when he is down, isn`t nice, but Blair deserves this and more.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 05:00 PM

Here's another headline:

Bushites Take a Baath!

(the Bush administration is re-thinking its purge of Baath Party members in Iraq)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 06:07 PM

I doubt he will heed th advice though. These people are far more experienced than he is in having a long term understanding of foreign affairs. But we know Tony does not listen.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Gareth
Date: 26 Apr 04 - 07:10 PM

Tell me Sir, are these the people from the same Foriegn Office who put Saddam Hussain as harmless prior to the invasion of Kuwait ?

Who said there was no risk of invasion in the Falklands ?

Etc.

No, history holds the decisions of the mandarins of the "Foriegn Office" with contempt.

Having said that they might have a point, but the source is tainted !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 12:10 AM

No, Gareth, but they are using the same driveway, and the paintings in the main hall have not been changed in several decades either. Maybe there's a connection...

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 12:47 AM

Remember that kid in school who was always trying to be your friend and was always running after you saying, "Hey, wait for me"?

Thats how I see Blair. He thinks Bush is his friend. What a loser!

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 12:50 AM

come to think of it... Its more like Bush is the bully and Blair is the on-looker who supports him by not saying anything. In fact, he "eggs him on" and gives him power that he doesn't deserve. Its usually cowards who play this role. They do it because they are afraid of being victimized themselves. Blair is a wimpy little wannabe.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 03:45 AM

No matter---they're talking to a head full of bumble-bees connected by a trunk to a pair of clay feet.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:24 AM

Having read their letter, they don't appear to be saying anything other than in general we disagree with what you are doing.

I'm with Gareth on this one, the time for these gentlemen to have spoken up was when they were "in the chair". Maybe their advice should have been a bit better, irrespective of how unwelcome - didn't happen of course, because at the time their major considerations were safeguarding their index linked pensions and their knighthoods.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:44 AM

A number of Labour MPs have spoken out in agreement with the former ambassadors,
Doug Henderson, the former Defence Minister said, " These are the guys with a lot of experience of dealing with critical issuses, we would be well advised to listen to their views, very carefully."

I am with Duggie on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 04:50 AM

Teribus has a point. While I don't dispute the honesty and validity of their sentiments, I wonder how many active ambassadors would be willing to add their name to the list of 52. Or even why those 52 waited until now, and did not bring their statement out last month, or better last year. They are seeing the beginning of the end and they are jumping on the bandwagon, it seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 09:31 AM

The reason, given by a spokesman of this group when interviewed, was that the last straw was Blair's backing of Bush the other day when Bush tore up the "Road Map", and lined up behind Sharon.

People on the inside always have a dilemma as to whether to keep schtum and button their lips, and hold on to some kind of influence, and maybe to minimise damage, or to blow the whistle and lose any influence. Worries about losing jobs and pensions are obviously a factor too, but not the only one.

That's been the rationale given for Blair repeatedly. We've been told that by backing Bush in public he's got some kind of hope of edging him towards some kind of sane policies. The same kind of thing we were told about Wilson and LBJ in the time of Vietnam - though at least Wilson never got as far joining in militarily that time.

And the reason why the Bush-Blair-Sharon love-fest was the final straw, it was suggested, was because it indicated that all that kind of rationale was a sham, and that compared to Sharon any influence Blair might have had was that of a featherweight.

Since we don't actually know what kind of advice they were giving when they were in post, it's a bit much discounting anything they say now on the grounds that what they might have said then was mistaken. (After all the advice that would have mattered would have been the stuff we don't get to see for decades.)

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 10:04 AM

Very true MGOH, but their letter offered no solutions, merely criticism and as such cannot be considered helpful. While in their jobs they could keep the FO informed, but the degree of discretion they could could use was strictly limited to towing what the FO line was at the time, as directed by cabinet and Whitehall - the content of the joint letter was subject to no such constraint.

By the bye, the US "endorsement" of what they call the "Sharon Plan" in effect only creates a barganing position, nothing more.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 11:29 AM

And there`s more, Tam Dalyell, the father of the commons, added, " I fully support the 52 diplomats. This is unprecedendet in my 41 years as an MP, I have never seen such a move, they can`t be dusmissed as ex-diplomats, it`s a great deal more serious than that."
I am with Tam on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Gareth
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 07:25 PM

Ah Dear ard mhacha - It's any excuse isn't it. I might treat you post with a little less contempt if I suspected you actually knew the names of Henderson and Dayall prior to your viewing of the BBC Intrernet reports that you did searching for support.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 08:36 PM

"Very true MGOH, but their letter offered no solutions, merely criticism and as such cannot be considered helpful/i>"
None of it is helpful, Teribus. Neither the Robin Cook resignation, the Claire Short affair, The Hutton Inquiry, the number of people being killed in the Field. Well, it is not helpful to Tony Blair, and his Government, that's for sure. I'm reminded of the old 1970's VW advert here: 17 million owners can't be wrong. The straw that broke the Ambassadors back was 'The Sharon Plan', and perhaps this was the reason that they haven't spoken up before 'when they were in the chair'.

Why do they have to be 'in the chair', anyway, in order to qualify as competent pepole to comment on anything? We aren't 'in the chair', yet we are the ones who are supposed to vote for these politicians.

Was in at your Caerphilly Labour website, Gareth. There is an annoying 'pop-up' at page load telling me that my computer clock may be running slow. As my computer clock contacts time.nist.gov every four hours, I can assure you that it is neither running slow, nor anywhere near running slow. But that is not the view of a Labour Party-endorsed site. And if a party can make that kind of a sweeping assumption about visitors to one of its' member websites, based on no evidence whatsoever, what kind of a message does that send out to people who are expected to trust their every word?

But the contention by Welsh Labour that my clock needs updating (and no doubt, therefore, recommend that some Trojan Horse be installed, so as it will be working perfectly again) is just one of the many 'pop-ups' that try to break through our real-life 'firewalls', these days.

Don't see any pictures of you, Gareth.
Did nobody ask you to say 'Cheese'

Jim

I don't

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 08:43 PM

Sorry about the formatting, and for the unfinished sentence. I meant to add nothing after I signed..

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: HuwG
Date: 27 Apr 04 - 10:32 PM

abla-tion, n. Removal (esp. in surgery, if any part of body); (Geol.) waste of a glacier or rock, by melting or water action. [f. L ablatio f. AB(lat- p. p. st of ferre carry)]

There is apparently no verb, "ablate", to go with this noun, but when did that ever stop such noted explorers of the english language as Al Haig, Gordon Brown et al. ?

So a little finagling with the word, and one has the meaning that by being "blated", Tony Blair has been planed, scoured or stripped by the criticism of these former honest men sent abroad to lie for their country.

The original GUEST poster should perhaps have stuck to his guns. "Blated" is a beautifully onomatopaeic and descriptive word.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 03:13 AM

Gareth, When your mum was changing your nappies, I knew of the boul Tam, he was an outstanding opponent of Thatcher`s charge to save the home shores in the Mavinas. Leave assumed intellactual arrogance to Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 04:25 AM

And yet more, what villainous traitors these Labourites are, now we have Malcolm Savidge Labour MP for Aberdeen North, saying, " It`s very important that we distiguish being a close ally of the US and appearing uncritically to support George Bush`s administration."

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: GUEST,gareth at college
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 10:44 AM

Dear Jim - You will note in the "Disclaimer" a point about popups and the like, unfortunately it is neccessary to keep the costs down.

Still nice to know that you find it neccessary to vist that site. I musat take a week out and update it.

Ard M - Why do you need to asumne everybody is your intelectual superior - or does it just save time ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 11:21 AM

The poor citizens of Iraq are being slaughtered in their hundreds and Blair continues to support the murders, despite the criticism from all sides.
Menzies Campbell, the Lberal Democrat foreifn affairs spokesman referring to the ambassadors statment,said, " This is a remarkable intervention in the this debate about the Middle East from a group of people who are almost certainly the most expert in Britain on this issuse.
The Prime Minister would be well advised to take account of their criticisms."

Ard Mhacha from the University of Life.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Gareth
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 07:30 PM

"The poor citizens of Iraq are being slaughtered in their hundreds"

Just like Saddam Hussain did ???

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 07:48 PM

Teribus...I agree with what you say about the spineless diplomats, who should have been on the march with the millions in Feb 2003.
They had the solution to the problem now facing the "coalition"
No War....
Unfortunatly the good old USA and their few friends were not thinking of required solutions when they waded in with flags flying and guns blazing.
And still the apologists grasp any straws to convince themselves of the rightness of their case.
How many dead children will it take before they have to scramble for the helicopters once again,as they did in Viet Nam,leaving their helpers to the mercy of the Viet Cong.
The Viet Cong will look like nursery maids,when compared to the "Mad Mullahs" and their fanatical followers.
I used to think you a fair person but you seem to have "lost the plot" over the Iraq debacle....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Metchosin
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 08:09 PM

Yeah Gareth, just like Saddam Hussein did....those poor bastards can't win for losing, eh? and as Churchill said, many years ago, "Meddle in the Middle East at your peril."

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 08:37 PM

"I must take a week out and update it"

No, Gareth. You must take six months out, and put the thing out of it's misery.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Apr 04 - 09:24 PM

I saw Blair doing Parliamentary Question Time today. I thought he really looked nervous, taking his glasses off and on repeatedly every couple of seconds. I can't see him holding on too long. That heart problem is going to come up again sometiem this summer, and it'll be Gordon Brown rallying the troops at the Labour Party Conference in October.

Now's the time to place a bet.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 12:46 AM

Gareth - This isn't a contest to see who can kill the most Iraqis.

They're both criminals.

Didn't your mother ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 05:02 AM

Todays Guardian Leader,29/4, focuses on the disquiet with the British Army Commanders in Iraq ,over Blair`s resolve to commit more British troops to Iraq.

" Growing disquiet over the apparent unravelling of policy in Iraq is not limited to Britains former diplomats.
A similar disquiet also appears to be shared by some serving senior military commanders.

When experienced military voices talk of a growing " culture clash" between the two military, we should listen to them with the same attention that has been afforded our former diplomats."

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 04:07 PM

"we should listen to them with the same attention that has been afforded our former diplomats"

We will, GUEST.
God, you would think that George W. Bush is endowed with Divine Right, to read some of the posts of his apologists on this Forum.

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Gareth
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 04:50 PM

dianavan two wrongs do not make a right, correct.

Unfortunately there are those on this forum whose attitude seems to be America &/or the UK is always wrong.

It appears the my reminders on thisaspect anoy some people, if so GOOD !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 06:42 PM

No Gareth, your posts are but mere 'pop-ups'; short on forethought, and long on windedness

(America &/or the UK is always wrong, indeed!)

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Gareth
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 07:08 PM

Jim -No relatio to that Arsehole Peter K ( previously known as Fionn )are you ?

The style seems familiar, and the stupidy is identical.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: GUEST,Jim McCallan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 07:26 PM

1: None of your business, and
2: If you are ever imprisoned because of your good detective work, Gareth, you too would be eligible to claim that a vast miscarriage of justice had been visited upon you.

A pot calling a kettle black, is no recommendation (to paraphrase half a dozen proverbs).

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Gareth
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 07:33 PM

Jim were you sober when you wrote that last post ?

Not very good insults - Try harder, I'll give you E Minus on your grade.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 08:12 PM

I do not come here to trade insults, Gareth; I leave that to you and a few other time-wasters around here. I come here to discuss the future through the medium of the present, with people who likewise give a shit.

You, on the other hand, just get on everybody's nerves, and were I in a pub, well into the back nine of a bottle of Laphroaig, I wouldn't even talk to you, never mind posting messages to you on an internet forum.

The lid is still securely tightened on the jam-jar that you presently inhabit I'm afraid, Gareth.
One you manage to open it (if you manage to open it), you will know what I mean.

Who's the stupid bastard, now?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 08:36 PM

"whose attitude seems to be America &/or the UK is always wrong."

All governments shout loud enough about the good things they reckon they are doing. It's the job of citizens to pick out the things they do wrong, because the governments never will.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 29 Apr 04 - 08:43 PM

.... and this is where the question of being un-patriotic comes in...

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 06:42 AM

Gareth is confusing the actions of the executive with advice from the civil service. For instance, Saddam was widely seen, in the UK and US, as a threat to the stability of the region. Placing this as a lower priority than concerns about Iran, the arms trade etc, was a political decision.

Or take Gareth's assertion about the Falklands: Who said there was no risk of invasion in the Falklands ? I would be surprised if he can cite any reference for this being mandarin advice rather than a political decision. The proof of this is that the policy changed with a change of government in the UK. While Labour was in power, they would send a battle cruiser convoy into Falklands waters whenever the advice they were hearing (more from intelligence than mandarin sources) indicated that Arrgentina was contemplating a landing. Read for instance, Dennis Healey. (On p125 of "The Time of My Life" he compared the Thatcher government's inaction with the !green light" that Truman's administration sent to Noth Korea when it advertised its lack of strategic interest in the region.) Moreover Britain had just sold (but not delivered) HMS Incincible to Australia and there was a widespread assumption that Gualtieri would have had the sense to hold off an invasion until delivery was completed (in which case, of course, he might have won).

Gareth certainly has not read the Franks Committee report, which is rich in criticisms of the government rather than the mandarins in respect of the Falklands. I marvel at how abusive he is prepared to be on the strength of so little knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 30 Apr 04 - 07:12 AM

My o my, poor Gareth is really losing it, relax Gareth and take up your brush and make sure you leave that college spotless.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Teribus
Date: 03 May 04 - 05:15 AM

Peter K (Fionn) - 30 Apr 04 - 06:42 AM

If anyone gave the Argentinians the "green light" with regard to the Falkland Islands it was Dennis Healey in one of his less than spectacular decisions made in 1966.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Gareth
Date: 03 May 04 - 08:16 AM

Kevin - you are correct to state that any Government must be kept under observation, the reality is there are those who would criticise as a "knee jerk reaction" rather than as a reasoned observation. ie those who "whose attitude seems to be America &/or the UK is always wrong."

Ard M resorts to his usual tactics of insult, and not a very original insult at that. I might have more time for this bitter old man if he could justify his comments.

And Fionnally that self proclaimed crusading journalist Fionn.

Yet again hw tries to give the impression that he is the insider with specialist knowledge.

The Franks report was published in 1983 - As It happens I was leant a copy of that report shortly after publication, and spent a happy day reading all, what 100ish pages ?

Fionn correctly differentiates between executive decisions, and intelligence rendered. What he fails to differentiate is that exectutive decisions can only be made on the basis of intelligence received, and that intelligence included diplomatic assesment and input.

IIRC the condemnation of intelligence failures was fairley sweeping, noting a hardening of Aregentinian diplomatic demands, and a demand for an invasion in the Aregentinian Press.

Nice try Fionn, I am sure that 'Catters will note your continued inacuracies.

And treat any subsequent posts with the contempt that you have earned.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 May 04 - 09:42 AM

Teribus and Gareth can you see a way out for your darling boys Tony and George, I can`t, and former foreign minister Herd tells us the coalition is in a "nose dive",
And it`s heading for deep shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Gareth
Date: 03 May 04 - 11:37 AM

No problem there - after all Ard M it is interxting to see you now support Hurd, whom prior to his statement you had no time for.

As I have frequently pointed out in this forum you take an inteerst only when they say something that meets your twisted beliefs.

Still give it another 70 odd years, and you may come close to graduating from the University of Life.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 May 04 - 01:35 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 May 04 - 01:53 PM

The above slip-up will do nicely to illustrate Gareth and Teribus`s contribution to the music threads.
And Gareth has not been lax when lashing out at anyone who has disagreed with him, take Ake`s advice and use that space ship.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Gareth
Date: 03 May 04 - 02:43 PM

Ard - When your in a hole stop digging - I don't lash at at oppinions. I lash out, as a matter of deliberate policy, against those who are discurteous, or dishonest.

It appears you do not like this - perhaps a bit of courtesy from your self, and a little less gloating over death and destruction might serve you better.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 03 May 04 - 04:13 PM

If your bosom pal Tony had opted out and obeyed the will of the people there would have been no need to gloat, over 10,0000 Iraqis have died in this unnecessary conflict and it seems the Brits and the US gloated plenty in the early days of the invasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 04 May 04 - 01:47 PM

Yet more bitter old men blasting off, we have former US ambassadors criticising Bush for his disasterous role in the Middle East.
Why don`t these old duffers just fade quietly away and leave Bush and Blair to continue making a right bollocks of the world in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Gareth
Date: 04 May 04 - 07:02 PM

"over 10,0000 Iraqis have died in this unnecessary conflict"

In a year - does that equall SH's kill ratio ?

Ooops Sorry - Deaths are only bad when the do not coincide with Ard M's (BA University of Life 'Failed') bitter and twisted views.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 04 May 04 - 07:05 PM

So as long as we don't kill as many as Saddam Hussein did, everything's OK then, and we still end up as the Good Guys; is that it?

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 05 May 04 - 05:43 AM

So Gareth give us Saddam figures for murder, you might get your tory friend Cllr to give you a pull-out, like the bollicks you made of youself when you "investigated personation in the wee six, [and Gareth it is spelt PERSONATION, not impersonation]

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Gareth
Date: 05 May 04 - 06:08 AM

What bollocks Ard M - you asked for the reason why there were indentity checks on voters in the 6 counties and you were told.

If you wish to continue demonstrating why you should not be taken seriously , well just keep on posting !

Jim McCallan - No, just better guys !

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 05 May 04 - 06:16 AM

In answer to your question Ard:

"Teribus and Gareth can you see a way out for your darling boys Tony and George, I can`t" (ard mhacha 03 May 04 - 09:42 AM)

They have no end of opportunities, it is, after all, very early days yet. Anyone who expected a simple quick-fix solution for the problems to be encountered in the post-Saddam Iraq is being incredibly niaive.

By the bye, Ard, from what I have gleaned from your posts and the outlook exhibited in them, it doesn't surprise me for one second that you can't see the courses of action that are open to all parties involved. But then again you have always only looked at things from one perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: ard mhacha
Date: 05 May 04 - 07:42 AM

Ah, Lads you shouldn`t have backed all of those losers, you know and the world knows, that Bush-Blair and the oil syndicates behind these war-mongering buffons will have to go begging to Kofi and the UN to pull them out of a shit-hole of their own making.
Now remember who told you.

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: Jim McCallan
Date: 05 May 04 - 04:01 PM

"...better guys"?
Only if you judge the two by the same standard, Gareth.

Are we not supposed to be above that?

Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Blair blated by Ambassadors
From: akenaton
Date: 05 May 04 - 04:30 PM

Teribus, the real problem, is that America and Britain misjudged the feelings and intentions of the Shia,
Actually, they got it right the first time,from their perspective ,when they supported Sadaam,who did a good job of keeping the lid on Islamic fundamentalism.
Obviously the greed for Iraqi oil and a need for a stable base in the Middle East outweighed other considerations.
They are now in the position of having to fight the people we were told were being liberated, and I am sure the Islamic clerics had this all worked out well before the war started.
As Chief Chaos would say "Weve been outflanked again"..Cheers Ake.