"I'd do it again"- Blair.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
have we attacked Iran?

Jingo-induced blindness makes for poor historical literacy. What the U.S. and U.K. did to Iran in 1953 constitutes an "attack" on its people.

Originally posted by FMF
Jingo-induced blindness makes for poor historical literacy. What the U.S. and U.K. did to Iran in 1953 constitutes an "attack" on its people.

And providing military support to Iraq in the 80s counts as an "attack" as well, I reckon.

Blair acted on a personal whim in committing the UK to Bush's Iraqi adventure. He was reckless of the facts, reckless of the law, reckless of international cooperation and the UN, reckless of the consequences for the Iraqis and the region. I'm glad he's no longer PM otherwise he'd be turning the cold war with Iran into a hot war.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
what about a country that has the:

- funds to carry out the threats?

- prior history of carrying out the threats?

- prior history of concealing weapons programs?

how many match that profile?

In that case, why not invade North korea, Russia, and Iran too?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
i meant would you rather live with world peace in the hands of the iranians or in the hands of the US? you could try living IN iran to see how you'd like it.

That depends, if sarah palin was president I'd rather have Iran as the world's policeman.

Originally posted by frankem51
Blair acted on a personal whim in committing the UK to Bush's Iraqi adventure. He was reckless of the facts, reckless of the law, reckless of international cooperation and the UN, reckless of the consequences for the Iraqis and the region. I'm glad he's no longer PM otherwise he'd be turning the cold war with Iran into a hot war.

Tony Blair is a disgrace and an embarassment to this country. He seems to think that his personal enrichment and influence is worth the many lives lost on both sides of this conflict. He also seems to have a religious advisor who told him it was ok to invade Iraq. I would love to hear the justification for that!! On a slightly different subject, how do moderately well off politicians who rise to the office of Prime Minister get to become multi-millionaires by the time they leave office.

Originally posted by acb123
Tony Blair is a disgrace and an embarassment to this country. He seems to think that his personal enrichment and influence is worth the many lives lost on both sides of this conflict. He also seems to have a religious advisor who told him it was ok to invade Iraq. I would love to hear the justification for that!! On a slightly different subject, how do moder ...[text shortened]... to the office of Prime Minister get to become multi-millionaires by the time they leave office.

He also seems to have a religious advisor who told him it was ok to invade Iraq.

do you have a source for this?

I think there is the makings of a Shakepearian Tragedy in the political career of Tony Blair. Act I: Cheering citizens, widespread rejoicing, 1997. Act V: A defiant but shrivelled man shorn of all credit even for his successes, wittering on about "I'd do it again" to a stony-faced contemptuous citizenry, 2010.

Originally posted by FMF
I think there is the makings of a Shakepearian Tragedy in the political career of Tony Blair. Act I: Cheering citizens, widespread rejoicing, 1997. Act V: A defiant but shrivelled man shorn of all credit even for his successes, wittering on about "I'd do it again" to a stony-faced contemptuous citizenry, 2010.

Given the system we have in the U.K., Blair managed to get elected with less than 31% of the available vote. Since more than 69% of us didn't vote for him, the image of a country rejoicing is incorrect. There were plenty of pictures in the media of that grinning idiot surrounded by jubilant supporters, but most of us were shaking our heads in dismay.

Originally posted by acb123
Given the system we have in the U.K., Blair managed to get elected with less than 31% of the available vote. Since more than 69% of us didn't vote for him, the image of a country rejoicing is incorrect. There were plenty of pictures in the media of that grinning idiot surrounded by jubilant supporters, but most of us were shaking our heads in dismay.

Yes, and it seems only the LibDems want to change the broken electoral system. Of course they are being shut out by that same system, so it's not going to happen in a long time unless there is some kind of landslide victory for the LibDems - but hey, then they will probably forget about these election reforms.

Originally posted by acb123
Given the system we have in the U.K., Blair managed to get elected with less than 31% of the available vote. Since more than 69% of us didn't vote for him, the image of a country rejoicing is incorrect. There were plenty of pictures in the media of that grinning idiot surrounded by jubilant supporters, but most of us were shaking our heads in dismay.

The sense of relief and 'rejoice' was genuine and widespread in 1997. Not that I really gave two hoots. The fact that 40% of the people did not vote in that election is immaterial because it has been an ever present mathematical factor throughout living memory (to varying degrees, but apathy has always been quite high), and it was not a specific factor pertaining to Blair's election. All but one of my Tory voting relatives voted for New Labour in 1997. Relatively speeking, there was 'jubilation' in the U.K. at the election result, just as there was in 1979 in diverse sectors of society, when Thatcher seemed to so many people poised to put a lot of things right.

So the "31% of the available vote" is a bit of a red herring. More to the point, Blair had an enormous pile of political capital after routing the Tories, and having brought electable middle of the road moderation to the Labour Party. He started squandering that political capital pretty much straight away, but then tossed it all away after 2001.

I can't be bothered to be angry with him. He cuts a tragic figure - to a certain degree a victim of events and forces much bigger than him. He did not live up to the promise that his political skills seemed to offer. History will not be especially kind to him. Thatcher casts a shadow over him, even if the trajectory of her career and opoularity is comparable.

Calling him an "idiot" marks your card as a poor analyst with a petty cheap shot type attitude to U.K. politics, and insinuating that 69% of the population was "dismayed" by his election is dihonest, pure and simple, and based on a shabby back of a stale fag packet calculation.

Originally posted by FMF
The sense of relief and 'rejoice' was genuine and widespread in 1997. Not that I really gave two hoots. The fact that 40% of the people did not vote in that election is immaterial because it has been an ever present mathematical factor throughout living memory (to varying degrees, but apathy has always been quite high), and it was not a specific factor pertainin ...[text shortened]... nest, pure and simple, and based on a shabby back of a stale fag packet calculation.

Back of a fag packet calculation or not, the fact that you can get an absolute majority with less than half (or even only 35.2% of the vote as Labour got in 2005) is a sign that something is wrong.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Back of a fag packet calculation or not, the fact that you can get an absolute majority with less than half (or even only 35.2% of the vote as Labour got in 2005) is a sign that something is wrong.

As far as proportional representation is concerned, you are preaching to the converted.

Originally posted by FMF
The sense of relief and 'rejoice' was genuine and widespread in 1997. Not that I really gave two hoots. The fact that 40% of the people did not vote in that election is immaterial because it has been an ever present mathematical factor throughout living memory (to varying degrees, but apathy has always been quite high), and it was not a specific factor pertainin ...[text shortened]... nest, pure and simple, and based on a shabby back of a stale fag packet calculation.

Blair captured 43.2% of a 71.2% turnout. Using the back of a fag packet that happened to be lying around, I managed to work out that he attained 30.75% of the available vote. I can talk you through the calculation process if you wish. There was undoubtedly jubilation amongst his supporters, but even you can work out that they were in the minority. You take issue with my assesment of him as an idiot, and then you describe how he squandered a golden opportunity to make his mark. Make up your mind.

Originally posted by acb123
Blair captured 43.2% of a 71.2% turnout.

Taking that "43.2% of a 71.2% turnout" figure and claiming that this means 69% were "dismayed" by him winning makes you sound like an idiot, although I prefer to think you're not - and that you were simply being silly. Politicians as diverse as Winston Churchill, Bill Clinton, Woodrow Wilson, Valarie Giscard D'Estaing and Kevin Rudd have all squandered political capital in the conduct of their retail politics. It doesn't make any of them "idiots". But of course, for you Blair is an "idiot" and I suppose you think this passes for debate. Well there are plenty of people on this forum who are quite content to call politicians "idiots" as a signal of their compelling disapproval - a few come readily to mind - so I am sure you will find some intellectual playmates here.