Originally posted by latex bishopThat explains alot. Very informative.
Did you know why John Major did not get on with the Clinton government? Good old John authorised MI6 to do some digging for the Republican party and Bush senior, into Clinton's years in Britain as a student. Not the smartest move on the British governments part when Clinton won the election and then froze Britain out.
Originally posted by latex bishopVisibility alone is no recommendation of a leader. Hey, Saddam Hussein does pretty well on the visibility front. Tony Blair may be a well known international face, but he has made Britain probably the second most unpopular country on earth, rent a massive rift through the centre of the EU (source of nearly 60 per cent of our trade) and sold our sovereigty down the river with his slavish support of the US.
Lets put it another way, can anyone who is not British name the Prime Minister before Tony Blair? How about the the one before Thatcher?
On an international front Blair has ensured that Britain currently has a say at the top table of world politics. If you look back to 1991 when Britain was seen as a second rate european power with as much influence ...[text shortened]... I know Britain under Tony Blair is a better place than it was before he came to power.
Andrew
But then, I hated Blair long before this war, for his horrifically right wing education policy and his increasingly strident comments over asylum, among other things.
I almost can't bear to comment on Thatcher, but given the posting in her favour, I have to point that she continued to pay personal visits to her friend General Pinochet while human rights lawyers built up the Pol Pot-like case against him. She also single handedly destroyed not only the unions but the industries they were a part of. No precision bombing to her approach there.
Rich.
Originally posted by latex bishopI know I go on a bit about modderators deleteing me,but if (GOD forbid) I was a modderator,things like this would not ,but some Mod knows to trash me,and let this racist propogander through.
Lets put it another way, can anyone who is not British name the Prime Minister before Tony Blair? How about the the one before Thatcher?
On an international front Blair has ensured that Britain currently has a say at the top table of world politics. If you look back to 1991 when Britain was seen as a second rate european power with as much influence ...[text shortened]... I know Britain under Tony Blair is a better place than it was before he came to power.
Andrew
Let us make rule(S):
let us not name Countries,or name creeds.
Let us expext to share in others what is important.
If we work together we grow together.
Linda.
Originally posted by missleadLets put it another way, can anyone who is not British name the Prime Minister before Tony Blair? How about the the one before Thatcher?
I know I go on a bit about modderators deleteing me,but if (GOD forbid) I was a modderator,things like this would not ,but some Mod knows to trash me,and let this racist propogander through.
Let us make rule(S):
let us not name Countries,or name creeds.
Let us expext to share in others what is important.
If we work together we grow together.
Linda.
On an international front Blair has ensured that Britain currently has a say at the top table of world politics. If you look back to 1991 when Britain was seen as a second rate european power with as much influence as Italy or Spain. Like his policies or not Tony Blair has pushed Britain to the position of the major political power in Europe.
The British Labour party has traditionally despised strong leaders and so it is beginning to self destruct at the core as it tries to come to terms with a leader who is at the forefront of international policy and the power that gives him. I would not be supprised to see Gordon Brown replace Blair, and I would not be suprised if Blair himself resigned soon after the war is finished.
On a political level you can do nothing but admire what he has achieved, I may not agree with his war, but I know Britain under Tony Blair is a better place than it was before he came to power.
*********************************************************
Could someone please point out the racist tone in the above post? Again misslead, we see that everyone needs the Enigma decoder to decipher your posts...
Originally posted by willatkinsI won't.Moderate.
Lets put it another way, can anyone who is not British name the Prime Minister before Tony Blair? How about the the one before Thatcher?
On an international front Blair has ensured that Britain currently has a say at the top table of world politics. If you look back to 1991 when Britain was seen as a second rate european power with as much influence a ...[text shortened]... e post? Again misslead, we see that everyone needs the Enigma decoder to decipher your posts...
If you think you are up to it,I will support you.
This is no trap.
I honestly belive that I would be an all time failure at moderating.
I believe there has to be a buffer between players like me and you.
Linda.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
1 edit
Originally posted by willatkinsmaybe she objects to me naming Spain or Italy, which are done so on political / economic grounds. Facts are not racist. Germany, France and Britain are the main 3 powers in Europe, Spain,and Italy are in the second tier group. This is political and economic fact. There is nothing derogitory in this assessment. Had I said British people were better than Spanish people as an assumed fact then I would be racist. I am not racist.
*********************************************************
Could someone please point out the racist tone in the above post? Again misslead, we see that everyone needs the Enigma decoder to decipher your posts...
Andrew
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by richhoeyRich,
Visibility alone is no recommendation of a leader. Hey, Saddam Hussein does pretty well on the visibility front. Tony Blair may be a well known international face, but he has made Britain probably the second most unpopular country on earth, rent a massive rift through the centre of the EU (source of nearly 60 per cent of our trade) and sold our sovereigty d ...[text shortened]... ons but the industries they were a part of. No precision bombing to her approach there.
Rich.
I do not agree with a lot of the governments policies, but I agree with them far more than a lot of the polices put forward by the opposition which is drastically right wing on all levels.
I was making an assessment as Tony Blair as a leader and a politician - on both grounds I have to admire the guy. I do think he is the best option for the country at the moment out of the options available at present.
I would much rather build new schools and hospitals than support this war. I stand by the fact that Britain now is a better place than Britain in 1997
Andrew
Anyway, Tony Blair was advertised here as the British version of Bill Clinton. Which would make him fairly liberal. That is why I am suprised that the British government is so supportive of Geo W. But, then again, Ole Bill Clinton wan't afraid to throw a cruise missle or two around, which isn't quite par for the course for your garden variety Democrat since Vietnam.
On a tangent, they say that they will ID Saddam with DNA. How did they get his DNA you say? The CIA hired Monica Lewinsky... 😉
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by willatkinsI think British politics in general is more liberal than the US political system. Mainly due to the calming inluence of our European cousins and our own socio-economic development. particually after WW2.
Anyway, Tony Blair was advertised here as the British version of Bill Clinton. Which would make him fairly liberal. That is why I am suprised that the British government is so supportive of Geo W. But, then again, Ole Bill Clinton wan't afraid to throw a cruise missle or two around, which isn't quite par for the course for your garden variety Democra ...[text shortened]... will ID Saddam with DNA. How did they get his DNA you say? The CIA hired Monica Lewinsky... 😉
Anyway Bill, as you posed the question - what do you think of TB?
Andrew 😵
Originally posted by latex bishopWell, based solely upon the US media, I think he is an ok leader. He seems to stand up to the EU and look out for the best economic interests of the UK. They don't say many bad things about British leaders here in the US. Maggie herself is compared to Ronald Reagan (an insult if you ask me). Now, if you ask my in laws, which are from Liverpool, they think that TB is Geo W's lapdog.
I think British politics in general is more liberal than the US political system. Mainly due to the calming inluence of our European cousins and our own socio-economic development. particually after WW2.
Anyway Bill, as you posed the question - what do you think of TB?
Andrew 😵
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by willatkinsMaggie and Ronnie were always close, I think she really believed she could control him to some extent, and this was famously shattered when he invaded Greneda (which was a British dependency) without asking first.
Well, based solely upon the US media, I think he is an ok leader. He seems to stand up to the EU and look out for the best economic interests of the UK. They don't say many bad things about British leaders here in the US. Maggie herself is compared to Ronald Reagan (an insult if you ask me). Now, if you ask my in laws, which are from Liverpool, they think that TB is Geo W's lapdog.
I think history will judge Blair well on what he has done, the Labour Party now is the party of government, and this is probably the first time in its history that it can say this with any certainty. A lot of people lay the blame at Blair for not embarking on a socialist agenda and radically reforming the country, they argue that he has not taken advantage of his parties current political power to enforce social change.
Is he Bush's lapdog? We will not know for a while really, I think he has a calming influence on Bush - he is a window to world opinion, and a far greater statesmen on the international scene. I think most people would have preferred Clinton in power to Bush during this whole affair, but at the end of the day Blair is trying to make the best of a bad situation. If Bush goes after Syria I think the whole thing gets far more complicated for Blair though.
Andrew
Originally posted by latex bishopYeah, I think you're probably right, but then things were pretty bad in 1997. If I hadn't invested so much hope in the guy back then I probably wouldn't be so angry with him now. But I wasn't suggesting everyone should go out and vote Tory - that really is an unpleasant thought.
Rich,
I do not agree with a lot of the governments policies, but I agree with them far more than a lot of the polices put forward by the opposition which is drastically right wing on all levels.
I was making an assessment as Tony Blair as a leader and a politician - on both grounds I have to admire the guy. I do think he is the best option for th ...[text shortened]... this war. I stand by the fact that Britain now is a better place than Britain in 1997
Andrew
Rich.
Originally posted by Black LungSorry, I have to come back on this one. I think it's wrong to assume that any of these leaders will necessarily lose their jobs because of the war. They all should, but that's a different matter...
personally, i don't think blair, howard or the spanish guy stand a chance of re-election after this war
The fact is that war, as long as it's won, always seems rather popular. A war as one-sided as this one was always likely to win people over. It was illegal, and its justifications changed every 5 minutes, but such things have never bothered politicians much.
I have to add, it is very nice indeed to have got rid of Saddam. But then, there's a very long list of leaders it would be very nice to get rid of and not all of them are a long way away.
Rich.