BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Mar 03 - 07:23 PM

"There are those, who are sincere on their views, but have made a bloody war in Iraq more likely."

I wholly agree with you there, Gareth. But I think we disagree as to who these people are, and what their views are on this matter.

The sneer - and a sneer is an insult, and was when Lenin made the remark - can always be applied to anyone who appears naive. It can be applied just as well to those who believe in the good faith of Bush as it can to those who believe in the ability of Blix to successfully complete his task in accordance with his expectations, or in the advisability of holding fire until this process had been allowed the time he requested.

And I am also in agreement that throwing abuse at opponents is not a good idea.

Here's a quote from a Welshman, albeit a fictional one, and I've quoted it before recently in another thread, because I came across it the other day, and I think it is highly releavnt to Mudcat discussions which sometimes get over-frenetic,not to say discourteous:

"The simplest and most temperate words are the best for expressing complex and intemperate feelings." (Brother Cadfael)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:32 AM

I have always been under the impression that Ellis's character Brother Cadfael was a Norman, who prior to taking up Holy Orders had been one of the Knights Templar (Knights of St.John).

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:50 AM

Well Bobert, obviously you have not troubled yourself to read posts from myself, and others, in this and other threads.

The fiction that you (Anti War Protesters) have tried to create, that there is total opposition to enforcing the UN's decisions regarding disarmement has encouraged Sadam Hussain to defy those resolutions.

You have helped make a War inevitable, you have assisted and encouraged that murderous regime in Iraq - "Usefull Idiots"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 05:34 AM

I agree that the threat of war in the future was useful in forcing Saddam into limited compliance, however once it was clear that there was going to be an attack no matter what, that made his continued compliance far less likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 05:50 AM

Bagpuss,

"I agree that the threat of war in the future was useful in forcing Saddam into limited compliance,"

At least you admit, that the stance taken by the USA and the UK, was the reason for what limited compliance there was. But according to all UN resolutions limited compliance was not what was required.

"... however once it was clear that there was going to be an attack no matter what, that made his continued compliance far less likely."

It has never been the case that there was going to be an attack no matter what - In co-operating fully with the IAEA and UNMOVIC Inspection teams and complying totally with UN Resolutions - there would have been no war - that was Saddam Hussein's choice.

As you said above there was limited compliance on the part of Iraq. The moment that Saddam Hussein realised that continued compliance was no longer necessary was, the second France came out with it's statement that it would veto any UN Security Council Resolution that permitted the use of force to ensure Iraq's disarmament.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 05:55 AM

When you decide to attack at the point where the weapons inspectors believe that compliance is increasing rather than decreasing, and that progress is being made, that looks to me like you you were going to attack no matter what.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 07:36 AM

Wrong Teribus, I'm afraid, about Brother Cadfael (for a start).It's advisable to check the source before issuing a correction.

"It has never been the case that there was going to be an attack no matter what." It's a bit hard to see how a statement like that could be either proved or falsified. "No matter what" is such a wide ranging statement.

My own belief is that disarming Saddam of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was essentially a pretext so far as Bush was concerned, and even if it had been complete it would have made no difference to his invasion plans, except insofar as it made them easier to carry out.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 08:02 AM

In that case Kevin, saying that there will be an attack no matter what is equally as difficult to substantiate.

My own belief is that disarming Saddam of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was essentially a pretext so far as Bush was concerned,"

A pretext on the part of Bush for what?

With regard to Brother Cadfael, I was not issuing a correction, only stating what I believed to be the case, I thank you in turn for putting me right.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 08:15 AM

Gareth:

We see events from two differing perspectives.

It wasn't Saddam who stood before the entire world and laid out a new era in American history by proclaimeing that the US would act pre-empively on other countries and even named them in what appears to be the order that the US will engage them militarily. And I'm not convinced that "pre-emption" has anything to do with this policy. Its more like preventative, like getting a flue shot.

Well, that threat sank deep into the hearts of mankind in general and scared the crap out of just anyone in the world who thinks beyond war as the first foriegn policy option, or at least close to being the first option.

Then Bush tells the world he wants to attack Iraq. He cobbles together a bunch of circumstancial evidence, some of which was opening fabricated, and then sends another chill through the hearts of the peace loving people of the world. Then he has two or three temper tantumrs on national television and the world scurries to try to stop[ him. First Congress tries, but is out PR'd with flag waving folks using 9-11 as their swords. So Congress fails and many folks in Congress now admit to being out PR'd.

Then even Powell tries to calm Bush down and gets him to at least go to the UN, which is out PR'd itself and given the fact that the US and Israel routinely violate resolutions, break treaties and thumb their nose at the UN in general, this was nothing but a bother fir Bush. But he did it thinking it would give some level of legitamacy.

But, make no bones about it, during the entire process of inspections, Bush copntinued to huff and puff and threaten war. He did not give anyone any level of confidence that he was going to allow the inspection process to work as he continued to amass his arsinal around Irag and make statements like, Saddam has to go.

Let me pose this question. If Saddam had to go then why not assasinate him? Oh, because the US officially quit doing that in 1963 with the killing of President Diem of South Vietnam? So instead of surgically removing Saddam, Bush figures that the best way to do that is to kill off tens of thousands of Iraqis and occupy Iraq! That ougtta tell you something aboput the motives of the President, and the folks in his administartion who have had Iraq in their sites for a decade.

And so we come to the story where those of us who don't trust Bush's motives are the ones who are increasing the chances of a bloody war?

Hmmmmmm, Part 837

Beam me up...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM

Please don't acuse me of trusting Bush.

This thread was not about Bush.

I confide that a selective assasination of Saddam Hussain and his familly would be ideal but hasn't this been tried ???

BTW What is the price on Saddams head ????

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 11:06 AM

Please don't acuse me of trusting Bush.

Ahhh, but Gareth, you are one of Bush's "useful idiots".

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:23 PM

No Carol - I trust Blair.

Gareth, Yes - In my name.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM

Gareth, have you read the treatise from the group called "Project for a new American Century"?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,WYS
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 02:36 PM

Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?

Well, really, do you know anyone who isn't??

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 02:48 PM

Strictly speaking people are tubes rather than sacks; unless they are sea anemones and suchlike.

But in principle the point Wysie is valid.

As I said up the top of the thread, I am sure that Tony Blair believes everything he says. Always - even if it's not quite the same on some days as it is on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 02:49 PM

Strictly speaking people are tubes rather than sacks; unless they are sea anemones and suchlike.

But in principle the point Wysie makes is valid.

As I said up the top of the thread, I am sure that Tony Blair believes everything he says. Always - even if it's not quite the same on some days as it is on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 02:57 PM

Listening to all this stuff about how Tony Blair is a moderating influence on Washington, I've been feeling there is a passage in a book it reminds me of. Here it is. From the Lord of the Rings. Saruman is speaking:

"A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us...This then is one choice before you, before us. We may join with that Power...There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand, and there will be rich reward for those that aided it.

As the Power grows, its proved friends will also grow; and the Wise, such as you and I, may with patience come at last to direct its courses, to control it. We can bide our time, we can keep our thoughts in our hearts, deploring maybe evils done by the way, but approving the high and ultimate purpose."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,Colombe
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:04 PM

If Saddam has to get rid of his WMDs (peashooters) should Britain and the US not have to get rid of their much more deadly weapons too? America has more armed forces than the next 10 most equiped countries in the world. When Germany re-armed like this we saw WWW2. Perhaps the real enemy is leading us and no-one is willing to question it. Apres moi WWW3 - but French is a forbidden language in the USA now. "freedom fries" it was the USA who coined the phrase French fries - in France they are called frites - outside of the US Chips. Perhaps they could move on to expand that concept and call the French language the Freedom language, French people Freedom people. Chirac is a shit but occassionally shits have their parts to play constipation is hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:14 PM

And France would be Freedonia.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,Colombe
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:51 PM

Perhaps just now we all need Freedonia. But probably not under Chirac.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 03:58 PM

Well, it was either him or Le Pen, under their system of havind a run-off for the top two candidates. (If they had a system like that in the USA I imagine Bush would have been out on his ear too - and at least in France you can't get the person who gets fewer votes becoming President.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: GUEST,Raedwulf
Date: 19 Mar 03 - 04:49 PM

"The trouble is, the poor sod has hitched his star to Bush's, and I fear has learned too late that this entails swallowing the fundamentalist Christian right-wing lunacy that seems to epitomise the current US administration.

Like most British leaders since WWII (with the exception of Wilson), Blair seems to place a pathetic faith in what we on this side of the Atlantic call the 'special relationship'...

...Blair honestly believes that his 'good friend' George Bush is acting out of altruism to make the world a better place for all of us (except, maybe, British steel-workers).

I suspect Blair is doing something far less simplistic than that, Gervase. I doubt Blair, notwithstanding any public pronouncements he may make, is completely uncynical about Bush's motives. Equally, I doubt he was so near sighted as to not have considered all the possible ramifications of "hitching his star".

Whatever else I may think of him, I don't regard him as a fool (Now, Bush, say... *g*). Bush will leave power eventually. So will Blair. The American govt will still be there, though, & so will the British govt, and they'll still have to deal with each other. 'Special' relationship or not, I think the UK will still have a good relationship with the US once the war is over. France on the other hand is going to find dealing with America rather difficult, probably for decades...

If you could get a straight & honest answer out of Our Tone (Ha! As if!) I suspect you would find he doesn't like Shrub very much, that he doesn't trust his motives, & that he doesn't have any 'pathetic faith' in what benefit the UK might derive from all this.

Nor do I believe that Blair believes that this is the 'Right' thing to do. Like myself (& Gareth, DougR, Teribus and others in the "Let's get on with it" camp would probably agree), I reckon he views war as the least bad option available. Not right, not good, just the least shit thing we can do right now.

Weapons inspections? If you take the ballpark figure of 1 million dead over 12 years of sanctions & repression as a running average, about 228 Iraqis have been dying every day. So 10 days of weapons inspections inflicts the same civilian casulaties as the last Gulf War did...

Where has everyone's Bleeding Consciences been for the last 12 years then (mine as well)? What's an effective alternative to war? Because weapons inspections & sanctions haven't been it! I asked this question 8 days ago - still haven't had an answer from any of you peaceniks.

I don't want a war either - I just don't see any alternative. This is, IMHO, the right decision; if, quite possibly, for the wrong reasons... :(

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 03:16 AM

Raedwulf

Concur !!!

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 01:22 PM

Well, to all those who wanted your war, well you have it now.

And I hope that you are all satisfied.

1 person has all ready been killed.

It's that what you want well there will be more.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 01:25 PM

Nobody want's a war.

Well you Gareth and your friends who agree with you from what I read in your posts.

Gareth 'Yes in my name' and if that doesn't say that you want a war n then you're a liar

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 02:57 PM

Raedwulf: I agree with a lot of your last post and disagree with parts of it. I do think there was no other choice and I think the decision was made for all the right reasons.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 02:57 PM

Dear busbitterfraeSaltcoatsScotland ,

If you can not see the difference between war as the lesser of two evils, and allowing this murderous tyranny to continue, then perhaps you should not post on the internet.

Gareth - Yes, In my name.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: DougR
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 03:01 PM

McGrath: you still have not grasped how the electorial process in the U. S. works right? We do not elect our presidents based on the popular vote. This has been said often enough on the Mudcat so that one think everyone would know that by now.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: boglion
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 08:35 PM

War is the very last resort. It always causes at least as many problems than it solves - just ask the relatives and friends of the 20 to 25 million Soviets who died during WWII. My dad was a guest of the pro-current-war Japanese during the war.

Anyone proposing a war must ask themselves the question: Is it worth losing the life of one of my children to wage this war? If the answer is NO then don't propose it.

Apparantly there is only one member of the US Congress who has a child involved in the conflict. I wonder how many of the other two Aggressor nations, UK and Australia have legislators offspring involved.

Does anyone know?

Terry

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Peter Woodruff
Date: 20 Mar 03 - 08:51 PM

Yes, Tony Blair is a lying sack of shit and George W. Bush is too. However, These leaders of the free world will do everything in their powers to keep the rest of the world free.

Peter Woodruff

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 06:21 PM

I have grasped your electoral process reasonably well, I think, Doug. I was just pointing out that if you did it the French way it wouldn't have ended up with the fellow who got fewer votes getting the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 06:26 PM

Yes, well McGrath, the French have their way, and we have ours. At the moment I'm not in the mood to copy anything French.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:14 PM

Well, danged, Dougie! What the haeck was that little mugging of the democratic process on 2000. Where was it copied from with the current man living in the White House sending a batallian of lawyers to a Supreme Court, many of whom were appointed by this inhabitant's father, to *stop* the counting of votes just hours before the winner, Al Gore, would have surpassed the current inhabitant?

Or how about the 57,700 predominantly black voters, who voted 90% for Gore in Florida, who had been secretly purged from the voting roles.

No, you don't want to look at that because that would mean that you would possibly have to face that reality that your guy as a crook!

And that wouldn't be any fun for Dougie to do. No, sir...

And so now you tell me that we want to bring out form of "democracy" to Iraq? Hmmmmmm? I'd rather fix ours first before trying to sell it to someone else 'cause right now our system would fall under the "lemon laws".

Bobert

p.s. But yer still my buddy, Doug. Even if you are a knucklehead!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:23 PM

But seriously, I can't see why you should have anything against the French, just because their government (in common with enormous numbers of people all round the world) came to a different viewpoint from your government. To have backed the USA, if they thought the USA was making a big mistake, would have been a seriously unfriendly thing to do.

When the Americans pulled the rug from under the British at the time of Suez, that was not an unfriendly act, and in time most people in this country appreciated that, and there has never been any antagonism toward the USA as a result.

Grownups shouldn't let a disagreement turn into a quarrel. Well, nor should anyone, but that kind of thing is more understandable in children. People disagree, that's how it is, and in principle it's a good thing that they do.

I suppose this is thread drift and belongs in another thread - except that one of the things about this whole affair that seems most gratuitously nasty is the way Tony Blair has been pretending that if the French had come on board it would have in some way reduced the likelihood of war. I think that is just dishonest and shabby, and encourages a kind of xenophobia which damages us all. I don't even think it is sincere.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 03:59 AM

I am like you I want Saddam to to go, however if you and your kind are so keen on war then why don't you go over to Iraq and help them out.
unlike like you I want peace, and what America and Britian are doing is wrong.
However if you think that killing inoccent men, women and children is a sure way of getting world peace then that's your view.

You think that war is right I think it's wrong, and we'll never agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:02 AM

Oh I nearly forgot,

According to you I and many others who have to same views as me shouldn't post them on the internet.

NO IN MY NAME


As I said I want Saddam out of Iraq just the same as you, however I don't thing that having a war is wrong, along with most people of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:03 AM

What I meant to say is having this war is wrong

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 09:05 AM

I am entiled to my opion, and if don't agree with Gareth then tough.

Who gives the right to tell me or anyone else what to or what not write on the Internet.
Is this what you do when some people write about you and don't agree with them, you tell them that what they are writting about is rubbish.
Well as I say I have the right to say what I want about this war or else, just the same as you.
I just don't agree with it, however we need to get rid of Saddam, however going to war I think is not the answer.
As I am a pacifist and because of that I don't beleive in Fighting.
I belive in other ways of doing things.

So I think that we should agree to disagree

Peace be on you

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Gareth
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:17 PM

In yout "opion" what is the answer ?

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 06:48 PM

busbitter - You are incoherent. Yes, if you can't do better than that, then shut up. Any five year old could say what you've said. I don't want a war, Gareth doesn't want a war; not Teribus, not DougR, not anyone.

Offer us an alternative, please?! So far you've posted nothing that isn't entirely emotional. Sorry, but I don't give a flying fuck for your emotions or your morals. Your morals are another's immorality or amorality. Why should I listen to *your* morality, to your sense of right or wrong?

Offer me facts. If you don't base your beliefs on your facts, you have no argument. The allegedly "pro" war brigade are operating on the basis that this is the least bad option available right here, right *now*.

What is *your* alternative? Put up, or shut up!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 06:10 AM

OK I give up, fair do's.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 06:56 AM

Oh before I go,

Maybe you should read this.

http://www.sundayherald.com/27735

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 07:01 AM

I'll try again

www.sundayherald.com/27735

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 08:56 AM

One last word from me, I might not be a smart as you but as I said I diagree with you views and you disagree with mine.
So let's forgive and forget, Ok.
And Raedwulf, please dont swear at me again, because I didn't swear at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 06:48 PM

No, you didn't swear, but you seem to have tried your best to condescend to & insult anyone who is reluctantly in favour of the war by implying that they're just bloodthirsty warmongers. I used one f-word for emphasis. What's worse? Go figure...