|
10 Mar 03 - 06:52 PM (#906887) Subject: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull I saw him on that trerver mcdonald show tonight, trying to convince us that war is a good idea, i dont trust him at all, he looks a bit dodgy to me, waht do you think? |
|
10 Mar 03 - 06:57 PM (#906893) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Rapparee Half a sack -- the other half is on this side of the pond. |
|
10 Mar 03 - 07:10 PM (#906907) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Depends on what you mean by 'sack'. |
|
10 Mar 03 - 07:12 PM (#906910) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Little Hawk Well, those aren't the words I'd use, but yes, I think he's lying allright. The only thing really unusual about that (for a politician) is how brazen and irresponsible the lies are in this particular case. And how dangerous. - LH |
|
10 Mar 03 - 07:26 PM (#906918) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bobert Ahhhh, does the Pope cr*p in the woods. Ahhhh, hmmmm? No, is the bear Catholic. Danged, I always mess those two up. But seriously, your guy uses a 12 year old college *term paper* for his justification for attacking Iraq and our bum uses a badly *forged* document that it purchased with my tax dollars. These two guys have broughgt a new, and much lower, meaning to the art of lieing. Both could use a "Lieing 001" (Remedial Lieing) course taught by Professor Clinton, his liein' butt seff! Bobert |
|
10 Mar 03 - 07:26 PM (#906919) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Mr Happy i'd like to know how big's his bribe |
|
10 Mar 03 - 08:06 PM (#906948) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow To tell a lie you've got to believe you are telling a lie. I don't think Tony Blair is capable of believing he is telling a lie. No matter what he finds it expedient to say, he believes it to be the truth. A great skill, and not that common, even among politicians. My God, but didn't he look uncomfortable. The programme where he was confronted by the women isn't on the net for some reason at the moment (maybe it'll be on later) - but this page gives a link to another bunch of ordinary people he had a session with today. |
|
10 Mar 03 - 08:35 PM (#906963) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow A very confusing site, the ITV one - that interview link I gave proabably wasn't actually for today - I noticed that it gave the million strong march of February as having happened on March 15th. I know news programmes like to keep up with the times, but that's ridiculous... |
|
10 Mar 03 - 09:26 PM (#906990) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bobert Well, danged, McGrath! The boy was readin' off a 12 year old college kid's "term paper", fir cripes sake. If I was reading off a 12 year old college kid's term paper, I'd probably have the deer-in-the-headlights look on my puss, too. Are you trying to say that Blair is *mentally challenged*? Well, if you are, I'm with you on this one... Bobert |
|
10 Mar 03 - 10:11 PM (#907014) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: catspaw49 I thought everyone knew that lies are better than the truth! Allan Sherman gave us a Scientific Comparison in The Rape of the A.P.E. Check it out...................... *************WHY LIES ARE BETTER THAN THE TRUTH************A Scientific Comparison I. CREDIBILITY: All lies are designed to seem true. The expert liar carefully uses elements that seem probable and logical and therefore easy to believe. On the other hand, The Truth is often illogical, wildly improbable and hard to explain. Summary: Lies are more believable than the truth. II. RELIABILITY: The Truth is spontaneous, accidental and unpredictable. Lies however can be planned in detail long in advance and are thus guaranteed to turn out just as predicted. Summary: Lies are more dependable than The Truth. III. ECONOMY: To be The Truth, an account of a given event must be completely accurate. This requires painstaking resourcefulness, expensive research, time consuming attention to detail, complex logistics and thoroughness. In spite of all that, some people will believe it and others will not. A lie will produce the same results without all the fuss and bother. Summary: Lies are simpler than The Truth; Lies cost less than Truth in time, money, and effort. IV. VALUE: The Truth can be found anywhere; it belongs to anyone who finds it, absolutely free. Lies are custom-made, often by experts, and the best ones are highly polished works of art. Summary: Lies are worth more money than Truth. Have you ever heard of anybody bribing a witness to tell The Truth? V. RESPECTABILITY: A) Great fortunes have been made by selling Lies to the public. The people who sell these lies are often grateful to the gullible consumers, so they endow libraries and universities and cultural centers. B) Nobody ever made a fortune selling The Truth. First of all, as already stated, The Truth is free. The only people who will pay money for The Truth are people who are being blackmailed--and they are only buying The Truth so they can hide it before anybody else sees it. Summary: Lies lead to libraries and universities, while The Truth leads to blackmail. VI. STABILITY: A) Take 1000 parts Truth, add 1 part Lie. Result: A Lie. B) Take 1000 parts Lie, add 1 part Truth. Result: Again, a Lie. C) Note that you can make a Lie out of The Truth, but you can't make The Truth out of a Lie. Summary: Lies are stronger and last longer than The Truth. VII. IMAGINATION: In reporting The Truth, a person must research the precise facts and stick to them exactly as they occurred. The liar can report the same incident without doing any research, merely saying whatever comes to his mind and filling in "details" according to his fancy. Summary: Lies are more creative than The Truth. VIII. RECOGNIZABILITY: People are accustomed to hearing lies all the time. Summary: If you tell The Truth, people will think you are lying and if you convince them you are telling The Truth, they will become suspicious. (Why is he suddenly telling The Truth? What's going on?) IX. SUPPLY & DEMAND: In describing any given incident, only one version can be The Truth, whereas the number of Lies possible is unlimited. Obviously, Lies are in far greater supply than The Truth. Frankly, there is a great demand for Lies, if they are flattering, if they build up one's hopes, if they help one escape reality, or if they promise wealth, health, power, or potency. Nobody is very anxious to hear The Truth. The only people who demand The Truth are those who are investigating something (lawyers, etc.)--and they only want The Truth to prove somebody is lying. Summary: Lies are the acceptable medium of exchange in our society. They are in good supply and the demand for them remains strong. The Truth is in extremely short supply and even this tiny supply far exceeds the demand. Thus in our society, The Truth occupies a position identical to that of dinosaur shit. CONCLUSION: Lies are superior to The Truth in numerous ways. Lies are ingenious; Lies make the world seem more pleasant; Lies are less embarrassing than Truth and less frightening. Furthermore, in fields such as diplomacy, statesmanship, merchandising, advertising, public realtions, and bookkeeping, The Truth is an out-and-out handicap. In friendship, Truth is harmful; in love, it is disastrous. The Truth is that The Truth has become old fashioned. Its full of odd shaped little nooks and crannies like so many old fashioned things; some people find them fascinating, but most people find them a pain in the neck. To find all the joys that go along with handling of and handing on The Truth is a labor of love, but most of us in today's society have no time for such things.********************************************************************* Spaw |
|
10 Mar 03 - 10:42 PM (#907026) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Ebbie Ain't that the Truth! |
|
10 Mar 03 - 11:32 PM (#907049) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bee-dubya-ell From Spaw's post: The Truth occupies a position identical to that of dinosaur shit. Therefore, it matters not whether Mr. Blair is a lying sack of shit or a truth-telling sack of shit. He's a sack of shit either way you cut it. The only difference is that if he lies he's a sack of bull shit, if he tells the truth he's a sack of dinosaur shit. Bruce |
|
11 Mar 03 - 12:34 AM (#907064) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: DougR John: don't judge a book by it's cover. DougR |
|
11 Mar 03 - 12:41 AM (#907067) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Nemesis "Of course the people don't want war....that is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering (Adolf Hitler's deputy) at the Nuremberg trials, 1946 |
|
11 Mar 03 - 01:20 AM (#907080) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: DougR Wow, Hille, you're making a point, right? Care to elaborate a bit? DougR |
|
11 Mar 03 - 02:07 AM (#907090) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth Well - Blair speaks in my name ! And I approve. Gareth |
|
11 Mar 03 - 03:35 AM (#907100) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus Bobert, In your first post in this thread you say: "But seriously, your guy uses a 12 year old college *term paper* for his justification for attacking Iraq,..." In another you say: "Well, danged, McGrath! The boy was readin' off a 12 year old college kid's "term paper", fir cripes sake. If I was reading off a 12 year old college kid's term paper," Just for clarity - it was the paper that was 12 years old. The college "kid" was a Post-Graduate Student who was writing a thesis subject to critical acedemic review - I think the appelation of "kid" is hardly appropriate. Regarding the work itself, the paper was about the internal security services in Iraq at the time of the ending of "Desert Storm" and the means and stratagems used to conceal weapons. Source material consisted of captured Iraqi documents, transcripts of interviews of members of the Iraqi security forces and reports from UNSCOM Inspectors. The author of the paper, who 12 years after writing it must be in his mid-thirties, said this about his paper: 1. What is stated in the paper is accurate 2. What is stated in the paper remains relevant today 3. Those using the paper, in context, have over elaborated the number of internal security organisations currently operating inside Iraq. 4. His only point of dispute is that he as author was not credited in the report as presented by the British Government. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 04:46 AM (#907132) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: John MacKenzie I don't think Blair expected things to go this far, but once he took sides with G W Brush he isolated homself from a lot more people than he expected. The French have always been anti American, and insular, ditto anti British, so when we sided with the US it confirmed all his prejudices, and also gave him the chance to attack two enemies with a single sword. So if Tony is surprised he shouldn't be, I certainly wasn't. At least the sore arse he got from sitting on the fence for so long will be healing now. Giok |
|
11 Mar 03 - 05:09 AM (#907135) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus To answer John from Hull's question. No I do not think so. It would be intersting on the particular instance of the current Iraq Crisis to heard what lies he has told. 1. Iraq presents a threat to the peace and stability of the region? 2. Iraq has failed to honour its obligation to the international community to disarm? 3. That Iraq possesses WMD that are unaccounted for? 4. That Iraq is actively pursuing development programmes associated with proscribed weapons? 5. That Iraq has failed to honour its obligations to the international community with respect to human rights? 6. That HM Government is committed to finding a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis and will operate within the terms of the United Nations Charter? No I don't think he has told any lies relating to any of the above. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 05:15 AM (#907139) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: stevetheORC Personaly I dont think that Blair is a sack of shit, shit has many uses he has none. As for lying I believe that he believes what he says when he says it but maybee not before or after a form of self hypnotism :-) He wants a war so we is going to have a war and if we dont like it then tough. (Move over Maggi) Orc |
|
11 Mar 03 - 05:23 AM (#907142) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow It looks as if they managed to ensure that there's no video of that confrontation had with the women on Monday - this report, with its interesting statistics, are all there is, so far as I can see - The Final Countdown: A Tonight Special - Iraq: Blair faces women voters. The most powerful bits where where the mother of a man killed in the Two Towers told him how she didn't want other mothers in Iraq - which had had nothing whatsoever to do with that - to have the same thing happening to their sons. And then she said that, so far as she could see, what he and Bush were planning wasn't so different from what the killers of September 11th did. And there was a girl who'd lost her boy friend in the Bali bombing who said essentially the same thing. People still rememember the time an "ordinary viewer" Diana Gould confronted Mrs Thatcher over the Belgrano - last night was even more powerful than that. Blair looked rattled all right. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 05:42 AM (#907151) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,Sack of Shit John from Hull - I have never been so insulted - you will be hearing from my solicitors. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 06:29 AM (#907176) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Linda Kelly I don't think he is a lying piece of shit -that isn't the issue. I don't believe we should go to war because it would involve the destruction of the lives of innocent people, and purely for that reason. On paper, we should go to war -18 resolutions have been passed by the Un on Iraq and the organisation has prevaricated for too long that it has made itself redundant - passing another resolution will not help since the nations of the Security Council agreed to the last -if they weren't prepared to carry it out why bother agreeing in the first place? The natos threatening veto have as much self interest in this issue as have the US. I do not think we should go to war on moral grounds - 2 million refugees so far, displaced and treated like dirt by Europe and the rest of the world and we want to add to it? People decry war on one hand and treat asylum seekers like animals on the other -what hypocrites. The iraqui people are supressed and we are going to bomb them into freedom- I do not think so. Tackle the Israel/Palestine issue and the rest of the jigsaw will fall into place. Only the US has the means to do it and should do it now. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 07:46 AM (#907195) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus Thanks for the link Kevin, quite interesting: Taking a look at the results garnered by this poll of 2,044 people you have: - 57% against a war with Iraq; - 58% of whom disapprove of the way Tony has handled it; - 71% of whom disapprove of the way George W Bush has handled it; - 65% do not trust the UK Government to tell them the truth about Saddam Hussein and terrorism on this issue; - 65% are against the UK providing troops for a US-led war without UN backing; AND THEN FINALLY - 71% of those polled said that they were in favour of the UK providing troops for a US-led war against Iraq with UN backing. The last one seems to be a whale of an about turn for a group of people, the majority of whom, are against the war, who believe that it has been seriously mishandled, and, who don't trust their Government to tell them the truth. But if the UN says its OK are fully prepared to not only go along with it but actively endorse it - amazing, utterly amazing. What evidence, or arguements do they think that the UN is supplied with that is being with-held from them? |
|
11 Mar 03 - 07:57 AM (#907201) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bagpuss Maybe Teribus, they believe that the UN will only give the green light to war once it is actually justified, and there are no other alternatives? |
|
11 Mar 03 - 08:25 AM (#907216) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,Raedwulf Very well said, Linda! Except for one thing - "I don't believe we should go to war because it would involve the destruction of the lives of innocent people". A million or so 'innocent people' are estimated to have died as the result of sanctions over the last 12 years. Not the fault of the sanctions, but of the way the existing regime applies them to it's own people. I'm fed up with the bleating of the peacniks who offer nothing but moral outrage at the thought of going to war. Innocent people are dying in Iraq every day, & have been ever since Bush Sr botched the last Gulf War. If you leave sanctions in place, innocent people will still keep dying. If you take sanctions away, do you think they're going to stop dying? Or do you think Saddam will go back to happily massacring his countrymen? The only way the 'innocents' are going to stop dying is if you take away the regime that's been killing them for the last 30+ years. Blair may well be a lying sack of shit (he is a politician, after all), Bush ditto in spades. I'm not looking forward to the idea of a war (it's not the war that worries me so much as America screwing up the aftermath big-time), but, sadly, I can't see a single other solution. It may well be that the real reason for the war is not justice, not security, nor anything but the desire of Bush & his cronies to get their grubby hands on Iraq's oil. If so, we may be going to war for the wrong reasons, but at least we'll do the right thing. In all the bleatings of the peace brigade, I've yet to hear a single solution that will stop all these 'deaths of the innocent' that seem suddenly to prey on everyone's minds. A pity it's taken 12 years & more for most of the protestors to wake up to all the deaths. A pity that 6 months after the fuss has died down (assuming we don't go to war) most of the self-same protestors will have forgotten about the thousands more deaths that will have occurred as result of not changing the regime, having moved on to their next crusade & bout of moral outrage... Yours, cynically! :( |
|
11 Mar 03 - 09:08 AM (#907255) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus "Maybe Teribus, they believe that the UN will only give the green light to war once it is actually justified, and there are no other alternatives?" And when, Bagpuss do you think that that point would be reached? Under what circumstances do you envisage that the UN would come to that decision? |
|
11 Mar 03 - 09:14 AM (#907261) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bagpuss Perhaps when Hans Blix has had the few months he states he needs in order to do his job, and in those months we find concrete evidence active chemical/biological weapons programmes which Saddam refuses to destroy.... |
|
11 Mar 03 - 09:23 AM (#907266) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth Hmmm ! The weapons inspectors have had 12 years - how much longer do they need ??? Gareth |
|
11 Mar 03 - 09:27 AM (#907269) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bagpuss The weapons inspectors weren't in Iraq for most of those 12 years. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 09:58 AM (#907291) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus Bagpuss, The weapons inspection teams were in Iraq for 7 of the 12 years, and in that time they were given a "right-royal-run-around". Saddam and his Ba'athist buddies on the other hand HAVE HAD 12 years to comply with the terms of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions that they accepted and agreed to in order to stay in power. They haven't done anything about it - nor are they likely to. Your answers to my questions: "when Hans Blix has had the few months he states he needs in order to do his job," Its not measured in months (few or otherwise) according to Dr. Blix - its years - and that is what Saddam is counting on - he's had five glorious trouble free years to hide this stuff - inspectors are not going to find it. So your: ".. and in those months we find concrete evidence active chemical/biological weapons programmes which Saddam refuses to destroy...." That is about as likely to happen as "Shergar" being favourite in the next Grand National, with Lord Lucan mounted. I think that the up-shot will be that Dr. Blix will eventually come back to the UN Security Council and admit that he cannot with any certainty issue a report declaring that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in power in Iraq have disarmed in accordance with UNSC Resolutions. The Security Council of the United Nations will then debate the issue - Saddam will in all probability be given the benefit of the doubt - in order that the United Nations can save face. Then UN sanctions will be lifted - there would be no justifiable reason for maintaining them. After a sort of honey-moon period - it will be back to business as usual with Iraq, France, Russia and China. About five to ten years down the track - there will be a war - and one that is extremely costly - I only hope then that we have the good sense to stay out of it. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 10:05 AM (#907297) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bagpuss "Blix reminded the council that he had earlier said it would take "not weeks, but months" to complete the full set of tasks, assuming full cooperation by Iraq." One of the many news articles where you could have read this |
|
11 Mar 03 - 10:12 AM (#907305) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Rick Fielding "Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit?" Nah, he's a THREATENED, and BLACMAILED Lying sack of shit. Oddly enough, our Canadian Prime Minister, who has a reputation as a complete disaster (who may even be losing his mind,) is using this to quite an interesting adventage. Can't figure out whether it's all so far above him he simply hasn't a clue, or he's actually being brilliant! Whatever...he's still saying that the UN has to give the OK. (which Bush initially said) Cheers Rick |
|
11 Mar 03 - 10:47 AM (#907342) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: DougR Rick: I disagree with your last point. I think Bush has always declared that a coalition of the willing will take Saddam out with or without U.N. backing. I think now that he means it. I am grateful that Tony Blair agrees. Surely there must be a better way to describe a politician, regardless of how you feel about them, than the one used by John anyway. How about it, John, is Saddam a sack of shit too? DougR |
|
11 Mar 03 - 11:47 AM (#907399) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: CarolC Some of the first batch of UN inspectors have said that something like 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed when the inspectors were there before. So the argument that Saddam has had 12 years of non-compliance is specious. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 12:11 PM (#907423) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST Tony Blair has always been a liar. Look at "New Labour". It's more like "old conservative". |
|
11 Mar 03 - 12:34 PM (#907456) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Lanfranc Blair worries me. He must be aware that if this goes wrong, he will be finished politically. The same, I suppose, could be said of Bush. The possibilities for it to go wrong are legion, and there is a high probability that a bungled military campaign, whether or not followed by an insensitive or corrupt transfer of power within Iraq, will further destabilise an already unstable region. I was talking with an acquaintance of mine, a senior RAF officer who is about to be transferred to the war zone (assuming he can get any further than Cyprus, which many of our planes hadn't at the time of our conversation!). He said that, apart from the equipment and logistics issues, the thing that bothers most of the senior military is that there is not a clear end game. OK, so Saddam gets ousted, then what? Is there an open-ended commitment to suppress the Kurds, any residual Ba'athists, the southern Shi'ite population into accepting an imposed solution which may not satisfy their needs or political aspirations? As a lifelong subscriber to the cockup theory of history, I see plenty of trouble ahead if, as seems inevitable, the military option is actioned. Iraq is not a stable state (after all, Britain created it out of a few contiguous but not particularly compatible parts of the Ottoman Empire). As for bribes to Blair - I gather it was announced today that only US contractors will be considered for the rebuilding phase. He may be a liar, but I'll wager he's feeling vulnerable! Alan |
|
11 Mar 03 - 12:38 PM (#907463) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,Tony's buddy All i've got to say is leave my prime minister alone at least he hasnt resorted to refering to anybody as "a sack of shit" I consider anyone who would a start a thread using such infantile insulting language as definitely a schoolbook short of a 12 year old.... |
|
11 Mar 03 - 01:03 PM (#907482) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow If the US and the UK believe that there ought to be a war, why don't they put up a resolution that actually authorises war? The one all the fuss is about now just ends up saying that the Security Council "decides to remain seized of the issue", which is like a court adjourning a case without reaching a verdict. And the last one just vaguely talked abour "serious consequences." Not a peep about military action. This is all just farting around until the invasion is ready to take place. Treading water. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 01:34 PM (#907514) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Don Firth Let us be sure that, come next elections in our respective countries, the various lying sacks of shit will be unemployed lying sacks of shit. Don Firth |
|
11 Mar 03 - 02:50 PM (#907574) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Linda Kelly can someone complete the phrase - we don't go to war the weapons inspectors complete their task and a) find weapons of mass destruction or b) do not find weapons of mass destruction so then we all decided to ............. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 03:00 PM (#907591) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth "can someone complete the phrase - we don't go to war the weapons inspectors complete their task and a) find weapons of mass destruction or b) do not find weapons of mass destruction so then we all decided to ............. " ........ ignore the problem, go home with a satisfied smirk of self indulgence, and five to ten years down the line throw up our hands in horror at the consequences. Blaming, of course, Bush and Tony Blair, for not taking action in 2003. I'am a great believer in the words of the late Carwyn James "Get your retalition in first." Gareth |
|
11 Mar 03 - 03:33 PM (#907618) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST, herc Their resolution did not say "authorize war" because it was giving non-proponents the opportunity to acqueisce in a vague but understood result, if they were so inclined. Nothing complicated or even particularly nefarious there. Bobert: There is an editorial writer who is pagiarizing you. So specifically, its spooky. I mean right down to the 3,000 missiles into the City of Baghdad on day one stuff. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/goldsborough/20030310-9999_mz1e10golds.html |
|
11 Mar 03 - 03:39 PM (#907621) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow I'm a great believer in the words of the late Carwyn James "Get your retalition in first." So was Bin Laden it appears. As I understand the position, if Blix finds weapons of mas destruction, they get destroyed, or the invasion takes place; and if he doesn't find them, the monitoring continues to make sure they don't get reintroduced, and so forth. But once again, if they really give a toss about getting authorisation from the Security Council for this war, why don't they table a resulutioin that actually says that? Read the actual text of the proposed resolution, and the one before it. No mention whatsoever of war in either case. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 03:44 PM (#907623) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Linda Kelly I think we have been here before McGrath. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 03:44 PM (#907624) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST, herc Okay, then. Once again. Same answer. Dan |
|
11 Mar 03 - 03:48 PM (#907626) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Kim C I don't know if he's a lying sack of shit, but he is sort of a cute little elf. ;-) |
|
11 Mar 03 - 04:59 PM (#907688) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: DougR Kevin: The U. S. and Great Britain keep watering down the language hoping they can come up with something that will be agreeable to a majority of the Security Council. Someone else alluded to that also in this thread. They all know it means war, they just don't want to say it in the resolution. As to Bush and Blair, I think they would be happy to include what you wish it to say, but then they might not get the vote of the undecideds. DougR |
|
11 Mar 03 - 05:16 PM (#907701) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST the man's a lawyer. Course he's lying. It goes with the job dunnit? |
|
11 Mar 03 - 05:26 PM (#907709) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: stevetheORC One thing has puzzled me, If Saddam has these wepons of mass destruction at his disposal, then suerly an invasion of Iraq will prompt him to use the said wepons of mass destruction as after all what has he left to loose? If he has the biological capability then what is to stop him sending half a dozen agents to differing locations and unleashing some horror or another we could not stop him. Just a gental nightmarish thought to say night night on:-( De Orc |
|
11 Mar 03 - 05:48 PM (#907729) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow "They all know it means war, they just don't want to say it in the resolution." So I write you a cheque for ten pounds, and you take it and change it so that it says ten thousand pounds and cash it. "But I had to do it that way, because you would never have written a cheque for ten thousand pounds." That seems very much the same kind of logic to me. |
|
11 Mar 03 - 05:56 PM (#907738) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST, herc The point you are trying to make is impenetrable. Are you alluding to the prior discussions that regime change is outside of the U.N. charter? |
|
11 Mar 03 - 07:32 PM (#907799) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Roughyed Surely the debt from lend-lease in the Second World War and the penetration and counter penetration of British and American capital since then results in America being easily able to send the British economy into a tailspin is the real point that has always meant that when America says "Jump" our political masters always say "How high?" After all, Tony learned the power of the oil companies the hard way only a year or three away. (It makes you admire Wilson in a strange way for keeping us out of Vietnam). |
|
11 Mar 03 - 07:43 PM (#907808) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bobert Yo T: You must be in a hair-splittin mood. Yeah, so Blair lifts parts from a reserch paper that was written 12 years ago. Other than you, I don't think there was anyone else on the planet who thought I was saying it was written by a 12 year old! Doesn't changed much. Your guy lifted stuff form a research paper that was written 12 years ago. True or false? That ought to make it simple enough for ya unless you find some dangling participle that you want to draw attention to so as to divert attention away from the facts. Bobert |
|
11 Mar 03 - 08:22 PM (#907837) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Ebbie Did you see where Rumsfeld indicated today that Great Britain 'may not participate in the combat phase of the war'? He backpedaled soon after, in response to a question, and said that the US expects that GB will be at our side. Curiouser and curiouser. If Bush can't get the world to agree that war with Iraq is needed now, perhaps he should question his own conclusion. When my daughter was little, she came home complaining that all of her friends claimed that she was 'bossy'. I asked her if it was possible that they were right? Very often the majority is correct... |
|
11 Mar 03 - 09:03 PM (#907861) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Little Hawk A great many countries have "weapons of mass destruction", specially if you consider that term to mean not just nuclear weapons, but various other weapons. It's not unusual to have them, nor is it a valid excuse for launching a first strike on anyone, no matter what his past political record. There is no valid excuse for launching a first strike on another nation. A first strike is naked aggression and is contrary to international law. It is the act of a criminal. It was because Saddam launched a first strike on Kuwait 13 years ago that an international coalition smashed up Iraq and threw them out of Kuwait. That was perfectly understandable, although it was in fact not necessary to smash up Iraq itself...the coalition could just as well have simply smashed the Iraqui forces in and near the borders of Kuwait, and driven them back into Iraqui territory. Such a battle would have effectively crippled and demoralized the Iraqui army, but would not have killed 100,000 Iraqui civilians immediately, and another million or so in the next 12 years through malnutrition, depleted uranium from American artillery shells, etc. A future international coalition may yet smash up the USA (in 5 to 10 years from now, after they've had time to prepare properly for such an effort) if Mr Bush and his advisors do not come to their senses. Such a coalition could eventually include Russia, China, France, Germany, Pakistan, India, every Muslim nation in the world, most of Latin America, and much of Europe and Asia. The USA has about 1 real ally left out there...Israel. (Britain is under the control of a prime minister who is blatantly denying the will of his own population, and that is not likely to last forever.) It depends entirely on just how much aggression the USA decides to unleash, and where and how they do it. Stranger things have happened. To return to "weapons of mass destruction", the crucial matter is not whether a country HAS them, but whether it USES them. (The same goes for guns in the hands of ordinary people.) Someone who uses them has openly committed a criminal (and self-defeating) act, and the general community will take action against him. He will find that the general community is stronger than he is in the end. Hitler discovered that. So did Mussolini. The "community" on this planet is not defined as the American President and his government...it is defined as ALL the nations of the World, whose collective voice is the United Nations, and that community is by now utterly fed up to the gills with the foreign policy of the Bush administration. - LH |
|
11 Mar 03 - 10:03 PM (#907883) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bobert I gotta agree with most of what you've said, LH. But when Bush gives the go ahead, the United Nations is history! This is two birds, so to speak, with one stone. Oh yeah, it will still be there but it will can't surivive as a body of international law with the one super power on the planet being a renegade, unilateralist nation... Bobert |
|
11 Mar 03 - 10:10 PM (#907886) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bee-dubya-ell LH - Maybe you should have added to your last paragraph "with the notable exception of those 'leaders' whose style of governing seems to involve a lot of kissing Mr. Bush's butt". |
|
12 Mar 03 - 01:11 AM (#907964) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: DougR Bobert: why are you so intent in saving the U. N.? For what purpose? If that body is to having any meaning at all, so far as enforcement of rules is concerned, it must see that the rules it sets forth are obeyed! Otherwise, my make any rules at all? I think Bush is anxious to have the Security Council vote on the the new resolution for one purpose only. The wheat will be separated from the chaff. If the U. N. does not vote to enforce it's own resolution, the U. N. is, in fact, history, and it will be of it's own doing, not Bush's or Blair's. DougR |
|
12 Mar 03 - 04:13 AM (#908016) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus Bobert: "Your guy lifted stuff form a research paper that was written 12 years ago. True or false?" True. And what is also true is that the statement made by the author of that paper that its contents (of his paper) were accurate at the time of writing and still remain accurate and relevant when applied to the status in Iraq today. CarolC: "Some of the first batch of UN inspectors have said that something like 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed when the inspectors were there before. So the argument that Saddam has had 12 years of non-compliance is specious." Your first sentence reference to Iraq's existing stock of WMD is irrelevant - you cannot un-invert science or knowledge - what you can do is establish that the capability, and desire, to go back into production is removed. Your contention in the second sentence has been dis-proven, to the satisfaction of the entire UN Security Council, otherwise why did they pass Resolution 1441 - Iraq has been in non-compliance with ALL UN resolutions passed since the end of "Desert Storm", that is a fact. It is even now in non-compliance with Resolution 1441. Hi there Little Hawk, Nice to see you back - hope you enjoyed your holiday down in the Carribean. "It was because Saddam launched a first strike on Kuwait 13 years ago that an international coalition smashed up Iraq and threw them out of Kuwait. That was perfectly understandable, although it was in fact not necessary to smash up Iraq itself...the coalition could just as well have simply smashed the Iraqui forces in and near the borders of Kuwait, and driven them back into Iraqui territory." If memory serves me correctly, during "Desert Storm" Iraq was lobbing Scud missiles at various targets around the region - these were not being fired from areas in and near the Kuwaiti border - something had to be done to stop that - or don't you agree - but it was effectively stopped. Casualty figures for "Desert Storm" were 20,000 Iraqi military personnel and 2,300 civilians. The figure (which varies upwards from 85,000) you give of 100,000 was an estimate which was later corrected. I'm with MGOH on the resolution - the wording of which should read something to the effect that if total, unconditional and pro-active co-operation is not reported to the UN Security Council by the heads of the UN Weapons Inspectors by such and such a date, the UN Security Council will authorise the use of military force to disarm Iraq. I also agree with Doug when he says that a new resolution will sort the wheat from the chaff. It will put down the firm marker that the UN means business. If on the other hand the situation is allowed to drift - as is the standard practice exercised within the UN - one thing that could happen is that British and American forces are recalled. In taking this step the US and its current allies should make it abundantly clear to the UN that any future problems regarding Iraq within that region must be dealt with by the UN without assistance from the US and its allies. The US and its current allies should also make it abundantly clear to both the UN and to Iraq that any attack, direct or indirect against Kuwait or Israel will be regarded as a direct attack on the US itself and will be responded to as such, immediately and without recourse to the UN. Now, why do I suggest the above? For two reasons: 1. Following defeat of any new resolution, due to France's, Russia's and China's use of the veto, the UN sanctions on Iraq must be removed. That in effect opens the flood gates for Saddam Hussein to to import, unrestricted, anything he deems he requires - Iraq's oil revenues will permit him to do that, the proven impotence of the UN will permit him to do that. His major providers of military hard-wear including the areas of WMD are, France, Russia and China. 2. If the US and its current allies withdraw under the terms I have mentioned above - it should be apparent to the UN and its permamnent security council members that if Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, does go back to its old ways and known territorial ambitions - It will be up to France, Germany, Russia and China to lead any UN action against him - That might, it just might, caution them with regard to what they sell him. Should Saddam revert to his former policies and the UN is forced to take action under such circumstances. The consequences for Iraq and its people will be devastating, because those leading the UN coalition will be incapable of doing the job swiftly and with the minimum of civilian casualties - they lack the equipment, training and expertise. If you doubt that consider that France has been operating, by and large, in a military vacuum since 1966, they have never operated in close co-operation with any of their potential coalition partners. Russia's capabilities in this sort of action have been shown in Afghanistan (when Russia was a great deal more of a military force than it is now) and in Chechnya. The prospects for the Iraqi people would not be viewed as favourable. MGOH: In response to Gareth's post you commented: << ""I'm a great believer in the words of the late Carwyn James "Get your retalition in first." So was Bin Laden it appears.">> I take it that your reference to Bin Laden is not referring to the September 11th attack on the World trade Centre - Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda campaign against the US started a long time before that. Terrorist organisations always have the convenience of not having to resort to the UN debating chamber - they do not have to worry about any international court. |
|
12 Mar 03 - 06:06 AM (#908047) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,ohaste |
|
12 Mar 03 - 07:32 AM (#908097) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bobert Well, lets face it. Historians, should there be any in the future, will argue the "containment v, war" question far off into the future but those of us who are content with "containment" won't get the oppoortunity to prove it is the right course of action because Bush is going to have *his war* no matter who cares. But what the historians won't have any trouble with is the fact that the B & B Brothers both *lied* to the world in trying to gain world support. Also, what won't be argued is that the world pretty much saw thru these lies. The evidence lies very much in this anti-war movement, which has no precedence... Bobert |
|
12 Mar 03 - 07:44 AM (#908106) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,Gareth Bobert, You have constantly alledged in this and other threads that Blair and Bush have lied over Iraq. The only "evidence" that you have provided are bland ascertations, paranoia and "conspiracy" theories. I rather suspect that history will provide a different viewpoint. What a pity that this history will be written in the blood of inocents slaughtered in a war of Saddam Hussains making. Gareth |
|
12 Mar 03 - 01:15 PM (#908311) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST, herc >>I'm with MGOH on the resolution - the wording of which should read something to the effect that if total, unconditional and pro-active co-operation is not reported to the UN Security Council by the heads of the UN Weapons Inspectors by such and such a date, the UN Security Council will authorise the use of military force to disarm Iraq.<< Ha! MGOH: Do you adopt that position as your own? Thanks for the food for thought terribus. I wish I had time to lay this out properly, but I think MG's complaint about using vague UN resolutions as justification for flat out war, and LH's complaints about preemptive war, show a problem of miscommunication on a global scale, which the Bush administration should have lessened, even if it could not eliminate the problem. In short, it seems the UN can only authorize disarmament enforcement, then turn a blind eye to the consequences of enforcement, i.e. regime change. That may be a part of the miscommunication that is simply unavoidable. Second, after all this time, I am still confused, and I suspect a good percentage of the world's population is, on whether the goals should be expressed in terms of enforcement of UN resolutions, or in terms of "preemptive war." It seems, at least on the surface, that allowing that latter concept to be expressed is what has so badly damaged the hopes for alliance and legitimacy. I don't agree that preemptive war could "never" be justified, but the bar necessarily requires a very, very high showing of justification. The Bush people should have let that subject alone, it seems. Or delivered the message with a lot more skill. |
|
15 Mar 03 - 09:18 AM (#910631) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,MOLJ YES >>>>BUT WHATS NEW> |
|
15 Mar 03 - 11:36 AM (#910696) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland YES AND SO ARE THE REST OF THE POLITICITONS ALL OVER THE WORLD. ESEPICALLY BLAIR AND BUSH AND HOWARD |
|
15 Mar 03 - 11:46 AM (#910706) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland I don't know if this will help http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+iq0097) |
|
15 Mar 03 - 11:50 AM (#910707) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland I'll try again http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+iq0097) |
|
15 Mar 03 - 01:05 PM (#910750) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: CarolC "Some of the first batch of UN inspectors have said that something like 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed when the inspectors were there before. So the argument that Saddam has had 12 years of non-compliance is specious." Your first sentence reference to Iraq's existing stock of WMD is irrelevant - you cannot un-invert science or knowledge - what you can do is establish that the capability, and desire, to go back into production is removed. Your contention in the second sentence has been dis-proven, to the satisfaction of the entire UN Security Council, otherwise why did they pass Resolution 1441 - Iraq has been in non-compliance with ALL UN resolutions passed since the end of "Desert Storm", that is a fact. It is even now in non-compliance with Resolution 1441. No, my contention is that saying Iraq has had 12 years of non-compliance is a specious argument. Let's start the countdown from the time that the last batch of inspectors left Iraq (at which time, according to them, about 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed). When was that, 1998? If so, that would be five years of non-compliance. |
|
15 Mar 03 - 08:51 PM (#911008) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bobert Gareth: You apparently are getting all your information from the Rush Limbaigh's of the world. The "lies" that I have spoke of have even been reported in the *mainstream" media. Blair used a 12 year old reserch paper written by a college kid! Been reported in the Washinton Post and New York Times and countless other newspspers. Has been on CBS, NBC and ABC. Bush used forged documents! Been reported in both the Washington Post and the New York Times and countless other newspapers. Also been on at least CBS and NBC. So you may not like that "fact" that your guys *lie* to sell their war. We have that in common... Bobert |
|
16 Mar 03 - 04:17 AM (#911114) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth Bobert - Since when was the research paper a lie ?? I Ask you and the other "usefull idiots" again, where has Blair lied. What evidence have you ?? Gareth " Yes - In My Name " |
|
16 Mar 03 - 06:16 AM (#911135) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland Gareth, You are the 'Usfull idiot' for wanting this war, along with you warmaongering pals. |
|
16 Mar 03 - 06:20 AM (#911137) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland P.S So you want the troops on both sides to get killed 'in your name'. And have their blood on your hands. how can you live with yourself, I couldn't. Unlike you I want peace in this world. Make Love not War NOT IN MY NAME. |
|
16 Mar 03 - 12:12 PM (#911274) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth No body wants war, but yes my conscience is clear. I am not the one supporting defacto, a mass murdering tyrant. Lets get his back to music - The Tune ? The Rochester Fusilier, also known as Waltzing Matilda. " A company of Protesters, was marching down through London Town, Saying "No War in that far Country! And they sang as the marched through the peacfull streets of London town, Who'l join the protest with Saddam and me. Who'l Join the Protest, Who'l join the Protest, Who'l join the Protest, With Saddam and me, And they sang as they marched through the peacfull streets of London Town, Who'l join the protest with Saddam and me. Not I, said the Kurd, Coughing from the poison gas, You'll not make a friend of Saddam out of me, My friends and my fammily, murdered by Saddams men, I'll no support Saddam in my country once free! Not I, said the Marsh Arab, a refugee from genocide, We rose more than once, to set Basra free, My friends and my fammily, murdered by Saddams men, I'll no support Saddam in my country once free! Not I said the conscipt, forced into the old front line, My relations are hostages, in case I flee, My friends and my fammily, murdered by Saddams men, I'll no support Saddam in my country once free! Not I, said the T A Man, called up from Cardiff town, I leave my wife in a free country, And Your support of Hussain makes war so very likely, Your no friends of peace in a far country. Not I, said the office clerk, in a lowly paid and thankless job, in a building in a far country, Saddams men control our thoughts, and food and lives, Your no friends of peace in a far country." Gareth |
|
16 Mar 03 - 03:54 PM (#911408) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow "Nobody wants war." I'll tell you one body who I am absolutely certain wants this war (leaving aside Bush and his cronies, who would probably prefer to have regime change and occupation of Iraq without actually having a war) - Bin Laden and those who planned September 11th. For them this is an enormous victory. They have succeeeded, with the help of Bush and Co, in tearing the world in two. And while Washington has the military might, the overwhelming majority of the world population is alienated from America. This would have seemed inconceivable in the immediate aftermath of September 11th. |
|
16 Mar 03 - 04:46 PM (#911440) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: toadfrog Well, McGrath, I sure can't argue with that. That is a pretty compelling point. And as far as "lies" go, maybe the worst lies are not the small factual misrepresentations which can be pinned down, or which someone will pin down five or ten years from now and be ignored by the press. Worse are the really big lies, which any fool can plainly see are lies, but which get believed anyway. Like the repeated claims that there is a connection between the Iraqui government and Al Quaeda. Which is entirely baseless, but appeals to mass fears. I think what is most embarassing to me, as an American, is not jingoism or arrogance, for those are universal phenomena. It is the craven fearfulness which is so easily played on, the plastic and duct-tape. The ease with which Bin Laden succeeded. |
|
16 Mar 03 - 05:05 PM (#911452) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: DougR Saltscoat: Insulting Gareth is not a reasonable substitution for answering his question. Bobert, I thought Teribus set you straight on that college kid theory in another thread. You saying you don't accept the truth of his post? DougR |
|
16 Mar 03 - 05:18 PM (#911460) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: CarolC From Bobert: Blair used a 12 year old reserch paper written by a college kid From DougR: Bobert, I thought Teribus set you straight on that college kid theory in another thread. You saying you don't accept the truth of his post? The research paper was 12 years old. It was written by a post graduate student (whose age I don't know), and was plagiarized by the British government. Bobert's right except for the "kid" part. That might be a bit of poetic license. |
|
16 Mar 03 - 06:01 PM (#911482) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bobert Thanks fir setting Doug right, CarolC. He's not keeping up too well. Maybe it's spring fever, I don't know? These guys don't want to believe that *King George* or *Tony Balony* are liars, and ya' can't blame them. For once they cross that line, it's like crossing the Rubicon. Ain't no going back... I'm mean Bush isn't even a good liar. He been cought so many times that people just expect it anymore. And McGrath: You are absolutley correct in your assesment of the Bin Laden victory here. He has hit the lottery. Does make you wonder about all the Bush/Bin Laden family connections, doesn't you? Hmmmm? Yeah, whoever said it, Bush must go! He is the most dangerous man in the world. He's strating to make Saddam look like a Boy Scout. I am ashmaed to have him as the President. I didn't like Reagan, or Clinton, or Nixon, of LBJ, or Ford, but I was never ashamed to have them as presidents. These are very sad times and the partisans love their guy so much that they can't see that, indeed, he is wearing no pants... Bobert |
|
16 Mar 03 - 06:51 PM (#911523) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth Oooooh dear. Question One Are the facts marshalled in that research paper accurate or not ? Yes or No ? Question Two Bobert I am still awaiting some back up on you allegations that Tony Blair is a liar - All that you and the other "Usefull Idiots" can do is hurl abuse - Lets have some facts please ! BTW - UK/Welsh Politics. The Ron Davies Affair - If Ron had not resigned, I was schedualled to move a motion of no confidence in him as Nation Assembly Candidate on the grounds of breach of trust at 1905 hours on the Monday at a Caerphilly Labour Party Hengoed Branch meeting. It was not neccessary to do so, and instead I had the honour of moving a vote of thanks for Ron's past services. That same meeting the question arose regarding Tony Blairs position on Iraq. Approval was carried with "aclaim" - But then there is a difference between Hampstead and Hengoed, The appropriate letters were sent, signed by myself as Hon Secretary. Gareth Hmmmmm ! Now that 7th Division - "The Desert Rats", are back in the Middle East, do we have to revise "Lil Marlene" ??? |
|
17 Mar 03 - 03:36 AM (#911701) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: DougR Carol C., Bobert, I don't believe I posted anything OTHER than the fact that Teribus had set Bobert straight on the "college kids" paper. As Gareth pointed out, neither of you have shown any evidence that the "college kid" was wrong. You can both use this opportunity to do so now, if you can, before the invasion. Bobert, you need help! DougR |
|
17 Mar 03 - 06:20 AM (#911764) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus CarolC, "No, my contention is that saying Iraq has had 12 years of non-compliance is a specious argument. Let's start the countdown from the time that the last batch of inspectors left Iraq (at which time, according to them, about 95 percent of Saddam's WMDs were destroyed). When was that, 1998? If so, that would be five years of non-compliance." No Carol - for your contention to be correct it would mean that from 1991 until 1998 Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist Regime in power in Iraq had complied - the international community know that that was not the case as reported to them by the IAEA and UNSCOM inspectors - Saddam Hussein has been in non-compliance with UN Resolutions since 1991 - Fact, fully accepted by the UN Security Council when it unanimously passed Resolution 1441. |
|
17 Mar 03 - 07:04 AM (#911776) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gervase I'm sure Blair's not consciously lying, but I wouldn't mind betting that he's being economical with the truth. For example, even though most of the Arab desks at the FCO and inside GCHQ and MI6 pour scorn on any notion of links between the Ba'ath regime and Al Queda, Blair has said nothing to counter the absurd and unfounded claims of Rumsfeld et al that there is a clear link (claims which have led some people to believe that Iraq was behind the September 11 attacks!). The 'dossier' of which the post-graduate paper formed a part is another example. Yes, Glen Rangwala's student stands by his 1992 paper, but he does not believe that it justifies a pre-emptive attack on Iraq without the backing of the UN. The chunks that were lifted straight from public-domain material published by Jane's are also agreed by most analysts. What few will accept, however, are the conclusions drawn from the 'evidence' in the dossier. I believe Blair to be utterly sincere in his belief that Saddam is a bloodthristy despot who is prepared to bleed his own country white and to trample on human rights. He may also believe that Saddam could pose a danger to neighbouring states at some time in the future, and that he may be tempted to furnish terrorist organisations with weapons of mass destruction at some point in the future. All of which, Blair believes, should be nipped in the bud with firm action on an international basis, backed by the legal and moral authority of the United Nations. I do not believe, however, that he believes in the Project for the New American Century - the ideological basis for the forthcoming attack on Iraq - or that he supports the Rumsfeld/Cheney doctrine of side-ining the UN and ensuring that Europe does not develop its own security arrangements. 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' (interesting that, in the past year, the leaders of Spain, Russia, Mexico and Pakistan have all been encouraged to believe that they have a unique and special relationship with the USA). That 'special relationship' was shown to be specious at the time of Suez, and has been a joke ever since, yet 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). So, Blair probably isn't a lying sack of shit - but it's a fair bet that he's shitting himself and wondering how the hell he got so out on a limb with the current US administration. Sad really, given that he has apparently tried genuinely to make a legitimate case for action against Saddam via the UN only to find out that his views are completely irrelevant. Thus, if one wants to bandy around terms like 'useful idiot', Blair would seem to be a prime candidate. I remain, Sir, your humble and obedient cheese-eating surrender monkey! |
|
17 Mar 03 - 04:50 PM (#912058) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,viet vet '67 'Tis sad to say, but the easiest way to tell if ANY politician is lying (and this is universal) is to see if his lips are moving. If they are, then yes, he is lying. |
|
17 Mar 03 - 07:03 PM (#912149) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: CarolC No Carol - for your contention to be correct it would mean that from 1991 until 1998 Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist Regime in power in Iraq had complied - the international community know that that was not the case as reported to them by the IAEA and UNSCOM inspectors - Saddam Hussein has been in non-compliance with UN Resolutions since 1991 - Fact, fully accepted by the UN Security Council when it unanimously passed Resolution 1441. Please provide documentation to support this. |
|
18 Mar 03 - 06:34 AM (#912397) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Wolfgang from today's Guardian: Support for attack jumps but opposition still in majority First sentence: Public opinion has shifted dramatically towards military action against Iraq, with the anti-war lead in the Guardian/ICM opinion poll narrowing from 23 to only six points in the past month. Ratings for Blair much higher too than last month. Since it was in The Guardian some won't believe it, I know,... Wolfgang |
|
18 Mar 03 - 07:22 AM (#912413) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus CarolC, Refer to First Paragraph, page 3, Document reference S/RES/1441 (2002), Document title United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. Which states: "1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq's failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);" |
|
18 Mar 03 - 09:19 AM (#912496) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gervase Wouldn't surprise me if the ICM poll was spot-on (they're usually prettty accurate). But that doesn't make me any more inclined to support Blair's action. The British newspapers have been largely pro-war (with the exception of the tabloid Mirror and the broadsheet Guardian and Independent on Sunday), and most people in the UK care little for politics with a large or a small 'p' (just look at the title of this thread if you have any doubt). Thus they'll grumble and gripe, but generally go along with what they're told is good for them. Let's face it, for all the vitriol and huffing and puffing these days, enough people once voted for Thatcher to get her into power. Heck, even I once voted for her! That aside, can someone please explain what Teribus is blathering on about? Has h/she actually fallen for the blandishments of this bunch (and check the names at the bottom)? |
|
18 Mar 03 - 09:30 AM (#912508) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus Certainly G: Answering CarolC's request for documentation to support the fact that, as far as the entire UNSC is concerned, Iraq has not been in compliance with existing UNSC Resolutions since 1991. Fail to see the connection between a reference and quotation from United Nations Resolution 1441 and your Gervase. Heard anything about French troops bound for Iraq? |
|
18 Mar 03 - 09:43 AM (#912511) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gervase Why should French troops be bound for Iraq? Or any troops, come to that? Given the number of posts on this and other threads, I think it's fair to say that there's some ambiguity about the case for immediate military action against Iraq (as opposed to, say any other country that has been in material breach of UN resolutions or which has developed weapons of mass destruction). Just because the biggest kid on the block decides to throw his weight around doesn't validate his actions. Furthermore, the biggest kid seems to have decided that the UN is irrelevant, so our arguments about the interpretation of Resolution 1441 are pretty Aquinean! |
|
18 Mar 03 - 09:54 AM (#912520) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bagpuss "Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations..." This passage doesn't support what you state, ie that it has been is breach for the whole 12 years. It merely states that it became in breach at some point and that it remains in breach at the time of writing of the resolution. Bagpuss |
|
18 Mar 03 - 10:24 AM (#912554) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus Gervase: "PARIS, FRANCE - It was announced today that France would be deploying two elite units of French troops to Iraq in the event of war. Five hundred crack troops from the 2nd Groupement d'Instruction en Abandonment are mobilizing to assist the Iraqi Army in the finer points of military surrender. "The immediate capitulation of an armed force is a delicate and intricate tactic in which we French have much experience." said Defense Ministry spokesperson General de Armee Francois-Phillippe Hommes de Petit-Pommes. "There is a certain protocol in laying down your arms or fleeing the battlefield. To wave the white flag while remaining arrogant, pompous and insufferable requires experience and training. The French Army believes it is second to none in the fine art of surrendering quickly. The record of our armed forces in that area speaks for itself. The Iraqi performance in giving up without a fight during the last Gulf War was commendable but slip-shod. We hope to improve their level of surrender execution for the next war." General Hommes de Petit-Pommes further announced that 1000 advisors from the Regiment de Collaborateurs Francais will also be dispatched to Iraq to assist the Iraqi people in collaborating effectively with any occupation force. "It is more important to protect their art treasures than to defend their honour," the General pointed out. The General also expressed the hope that Baghdad has some tree-lined boulevards. "It was our experience that the Germans liked to march in the shade, and we feel the Americans and the British might like that same measure of comfort in Iraq-especially as warm weather settles in this spring." As to the relevance of the UN - that particular organisation has done more to prove its own irrelevance - than could be proven externally, by anyone. Bagpuss: You could read through the UN Security Council Resolutions 687 and 1441. You could read the reports from UNSCOM and IAEA covering the period. You could then split hairs until the cows come home - None of which would alter the fact that as far as the entire United Nations Security Council was concerned their reading of the situation was that Iraq was in material breach of all existing UN Resolutions relating to Iraq up until the passing of 1441 - that was why they passed it. |
|
18 Mar 03 - 10:31 AM (#912561) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bagpuss I wasn't quibbling whether or not 1441 said they were in breach or not. Of course it says that, I was offering evidence in your dspute with CarolC about whether they have been in breach for the whole time since 1991. You stated that 1441 showed that it was, I pointed out that it didn't. I wasn't arguing over whether they have actually been in breach since 1991, just about whther 1441 proved it as you asserted. I'm more interested in the fact that none of the resolutions allow for an automatic route to war, with the decision taken by a member of the security council rather than the council as a whole. The last resolution of authorise "all necessary means " was the one which authorised action regarding Kuwait. And those means were limited to force necessary to get Iraq ro withdraw from Kuwait. Subsequent resolutions have not authorised force. |
|
18 Mar 03 - 10:49 AM (#912577) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: CarolC As Bagpuss points out, your source doesn't back up your assertion of 12 years, Teribus. It might seem like splitting hairs to you, but it looks like evidence of propaganda to me. |
|
18 Mar 03 - 12:09 PM (#912653) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus Bagpuss, I agree to disagree. Basis for which is in the preamble to 1441 "Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President, Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully, Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security, Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use ALL NECESSARY MEANS TO UPHOLD AND IMPLEMENT its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and ALL RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO Resolution 660 (1990) and TO RESTORE INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY IN THE AREA, Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area," The point raised with regard to "area" - as the bulk of these resolutions relate to the disarmament of Iraq, the contention that the "area" referred to as being Kuwait may hold good for 660 and 678, but not for ALL RESOLUTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO 660, the area they refer to is Iraq in its entirety. And authorisation to use all necessary means is given to uphold and implement 660 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to 660 to restore international peace and security in the area - otherwise why say all subsequent resolutions. 1. The Iraqi Declaration: Iraq did not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991)in 1991 and therefore have been in breach since 1991. 2. Iraqi Co-operation: Iraq failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991) and has been in breach since 1991. 3. Iraqi Support for Terrorist Organisations: The Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism. That commitment was made in 1991 the wording of the preamble to 1441 clearly states that they have failed to comply therefore Iraq has been in breach since 1991. 4. Human Rights: The Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, since 1991 and has therefore been in breach since 1991. 5. Those Wrongfully Detained & Kuwaiti Property: The Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq, since 1991 and has therefore been in breach since 1991. Iraq has been in breach of UN Security Council Resolutions since 1991. |
|
18 Mar 03 - 12:23 PM (#912667) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: DougR Ah Wolfgang, play nice now! :>) DougR |
|
18 Mar 03 - 03:28 PM (#912827) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow "All that you and the other "Useful Idiots" can do is hurl abuse" There seems something a bit odd about that sentence of Gareth. He seems to imply that hurling abuse at people we disagree with is not a good thing to do (and I quite agree - and I think the heading of the thread is a mistake and a distraction), but at the same time he proceeds to do precisely that. And I know it's a quote, but that doesn't amount to a relevant difference. |
|
18 Mar 03 - 06:36 PM (#912964) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth Kevin, Not an insult - I use Lenin's words as an accurate description. There are those, who are sincere on thier views, but have made a bloody war in Iraq more likely. Gareth |
|
18 Mar 03 - 06:46 PM (#912968) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bobert Hmmmmm? Please elavorate, Gareth, on your supposition that "there are those, who are sincere on their views, but have made a bloody war in Iraq more likely". When I read that, the folks that immediately come to mind are folks like Bush, Cheney, Rumsy, Wolfzy and Rice, fir starters. Just seems to be a real curious statement to make if it is directed at folks who do not hold those folks views. Bobert |
|
18 Mar 03 - 07:04 PM (#912980) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow "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 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) |
|
18 Mar 03 - 07:23 PM (#912991) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow "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) |
|
19 Mar 03 - 03:32 AM (#913206) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus 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). |
|
19 Mar 03 - 03:50 AM (#913213) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth 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 |
|
19 Mar 03 - 05:34 AM (#913241) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bagpuss 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. |
|
19 Mar 03 - 05:50 AM (#913248) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus 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. |
|
19 Mar 03 - 05:55 AM (#913250) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bagpuss 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 |
|
19 Mar 03 - 07:36 AM (#913285) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
19 Mar 03 - 08:02 AM (#913298) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Teribus 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. |
|
19 Mar 03 - 08:15 AM (#913305) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bobert 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 |
|
19 Mar 03 - 10:09 AM (#913384) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth 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 |
|
19 Mar 03 - 11:06 AM (#913444) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: CarolC Please don't acuse me of trusting Bush. Ahhh, but Gareth, you are one of Bush's "useful idiots". ;-) |
|
19 Mar 03 - 12:23 PM (#913558) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth No Carol - I trust Blair. Gareth, Yes - In my name. |
|
19 Mar 03 - 12:37 PM (#913571) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: CarolC Gareth, have you read the treatise from the group called "Project for a new American Century"? |
|
19 Mar 03 - 02:36 PM (#913712) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,WYS Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? Well, really, do you know anyone who isn't?? ~S~ |
|
19 Mar 03 - 02:48 PM (#913724) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
19 Mar 03 - 02:49 PM (#913727) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
19 Mar 03 - 02:57 PM (#913735) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow 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." |
|
19 Mar 03 - 03:04 PM (#913742) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,Colombe 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. |
|
19 Mar 03 - 03:14 PM (#913750) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Wolfgang And France would be Freedonia. Wolfgang |
|
19 Mar 03 - 03:51 PM (#913786) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,Colombe Perhaps just now we all need Freedonia. But probably not under Chirac. |
|
19 Mar 03 - 03:58 PM (#913793) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow 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.) |
|
19 Mar 03 - 04:49 PM (#913853) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: GUEST,Raedwulf "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... :( |
|
20 Mar 03 - 03:16 AM (#914246) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth Raedwulf Concur !!!Gareth |
|
20 Mar 03 - 01:22 PM (#914642) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland 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. |
|
20 Mar 03 - 01:25 PM (#914644) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland 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 |
|
20 Mar 03 - 02:57 PM (#914711) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: DougR 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 |
|
20 Mar 03 - 02:57 PM (#914713) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth 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. |
|
20 Mar 03 - 03:01 PM (#914716) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: DougR 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 |
|
20 Mar 03 - 08:35 PM (#914953) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: boglion 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 |
|
20 Mar 03 - 08:51 PM (#914973) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Peter Woodruff 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 |
|
21 Mar 03 - 06:21 PM (#915689) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
21 Mar 03 - 06:26 PM (#915695) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: DougR 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 |
|
21 Mar 03 - 07:14 PM (#915732) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Bobert 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! |
|
21 Mar 03 - 08:23 PM (#915757) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: McGrath of Harlow 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. |
|
22 Mar 03 - 03:59 AM (#915890) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland 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. |
|
22 Mar 03 - 04:02 AM (#915891) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland 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. |
|
22 Mar 03 - 04:03 AM (#915892) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland What I meant to say is having this war is wrong |
|
22 Mar 03 - 09:05 AM (#915958) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland 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 |
|
22 Mar 03 - 04:17 PM (#916141) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Gareth In yout "opion" what is the answer ? Gareth |
|
22 Mar 03 - 06:48 PM (#916220) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Raedwulf 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! |
|
23 Mar 03 - 06:10 AM (#916425) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland OK I give up, fair do's. |
|
23 Mar 03 - 06:56 AM (#916436) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland Oh before I go, Maybe you should read this. http://www.sundayherald.com/27735 |
|
23 Mar 03 - 07:01 AM (#916437) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland I'll try again www.sundayherald.com/27735 |
|
23 Mar 03 - 08:56 AM (#916461) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Tam the bam fraeSaltcoatsScotland 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. |
|
23 Mar 03 - 06:48 PM (#916682) Subject: RE: BS: Is Tony Blair a lying sack of shit? From: Raedwulf 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... |