The End of Blair

gek-opel

entered apprentice
I admit I have gorged on 4 hours of tv news today already along with 2 newspapers. And even I confess it all basically amounts to nothing!

Its why to a certain extent politics, in the sense of parliamentary politics in Britain anyway, is best treated as a soap opera (with ugly people). This is perhaps the true implication of the "new politics", the total ending of "politics" as a political territory. Its just management. A change of manager. Perhaps to a manager who might be a little more cautious when it comes to starting foreign wars, for which we might give some limited but significant thanks.
 

hucks

Your Message Here
Brown: For all the talk of the man's "big clunking fist" he appears to me a coward. He had plenty of opportunities to finish Blair off, to stick the knife in, to rid himself of the man. But he never quite had the guts- indeed this is entirely the reason why it was Blair, rather than Brown, who took the Labour leadership following the death of John Smith.

I totally agree with this, though likewise Blair could have sacked Brown from, say, 2001 onwards.

I also believe that whatever the opinion polls state now, Brown will be defeated by Cameron at the next election.

But this I'm not so sure about. For all his flaws, Brown is clearly a heavyweight. He's a clever guy and a clever politician. The feeling is that Cameron is, as that defecting Tory said, pure PR. His only two policies that I can recall were leaving the European grouping the Tories were in and abolishing grammar schools. He's messed up both of them. I just think that Brown will be able to expose him as an opportunist, and, if he's really clever, a kind of Tory Blair. Jesus, no one would vote for that, would they?
 
The feeling is that Cameron is, as that defecting Tory said, pure PR

Yes but when did PR stop working?
There has been nothing more than PR to politics since Blair in the UK and Clinton in the US.
 

leamas

Well-known member
Pffft. Is that a piece of street argot you've picked up from that Ali B character?

Shame, I was complimenting your reading of the current situation. Anyway, last time I looked it was Ali G...? Even Tony would have been able to figure that out.
 
I suspect there will be an effort to bring war crimes charges against Blair as well. Not that I think they will get very far.

There certainly will, already started. And you should be really fucking worried if they don't get very far, as the alternative is unthinkable. And, clearly, it won't be the British who arrest him (as the smug, borderline-fascist posts that have approvingly troll-invaded this forum demonstrate. War-mongering, racist fascists like that Vimothy creature you all 'tolerate' here would be criminally SECTIONED in any progressive civil society, but Britain - in its pomo ego-narcissist passive-delirium, to which this terminally fucked-up forum now amply testifies - is all too happy to lovingly protect and defend war criminals and their supporters.

You now have a dangerous war criminal - one of the worst in UK history - on the loose, and YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT.

Charming. Maybe we'll get Al Qaida to hire Dyncorp mercenaries and CIA rejects to undertake 'extraordinary rendition' procedures and drag Blair's criminal ass - not to Abu Ghraib or Camp X-Ray, mind you, that's too AMERICAN - but to the Hague international war-crimes court. Because unless he's held to account for his pre-meditated mass-murder, all foreign policy will, for his successor, along with that of the war criminals that constitute the US Administration, continue to be 'business as usual.'

Make no mistake, these slimeballs [and those who harbour them] will be hunted down everywhere like Nazi war criminals, but unlike those villains, Blair and his fellow psycho-fuckers have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide ...

So do yourselves, your country, and international justice a favour ... if you want a future.

[now back to Big Brother, the weather, musak babble, and the cricket results]
 

elgato

I just dont know
You now have a dangerous war criminal - one of the worst in UK history - on the loose

I would never deny that he has been behind some atrocities (whether intentionally or not), and would not necessarily say that he shouldn't be tried for war crimes, but where is the authority that says that he is in fact a war criminal? And 'dangerous'?! Now that he's out of office?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"as the smug, borderline-fascist posts that have approvingly troll-invaded this forum demonstrate. War-mongering, racist fascists like that Vimothy creature you all 'tolerate' here would be criminally SECTIONED in any progressive civil society, but Britain - in its pomo ego-narcissist passive-delirium, to which this terminally fucked-up forum now amply testifies - is all too happy to lovingly protect and defend war criminals and their supporters."
A fascist being anyone who doesn't agree with you eh? I'd disagree, in fact I'd go so far as to say that's a fascist viewpoint and I'd also like to point out that it's not entirely tolerated here which is why you got banned under your old porridge name.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Shame, I was complimenting your reading of the current situation. Anyway, last time I looked it was Ali G...? Even Tony would have been able to figure that out.

*bangs head on table*

Dude, your sarcasm detector needs a major upgrade. ;)
 

vimothy

yurp
Over here it's the neo-cons and armchair warmongers who are the most scared of Mr Brown. Check out this piece of ill-informed, propaganda-addled extreme right bollocks to see what I mean:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDkwZmFlZjZhNGVhY2RjMDZhNDQ4ODZkMWYwZTFmNDc=&w=MA==

But the article does have a point, the relationship between the US-UK could change, and that will change what the US can get away with.

Damn, I thought that was a really good article.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Damn, I thought that was a really good article.

Any article that talks about "the Madrid effect" is automatically disqualified from being taken seriously. Madrid was targeted by islamist terrorists to embarrass the Spanish govt for taking Spain to war. The same govt then lied to its people, were caught out and rightly defeated.

It was an act of moral retribution by the Spanish electorate, not cowardice.
 

vimothy

yurp
It was an act of moral retribution by the Spanish electorate, not cowardice.

Well, that's as may be, but you cannot deny that it was a victory for al Qaeda (in that al Qaeda bombed Madrid with the intent of discouraging Spanish support for OIF. Al Qaeda were pretty successful - even if we take this to be an un/fortunate accident - and have bragged plenty about that very fact).
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
Well, that's as may be, but you cannot deny that it was a victory for al Qaeda.

Of course it was - made more emphatic by the Spanish govt trying to shift the blame onto Eta and hoping no one would figure it out till the following Monday. They got what they deserved (the electoral thumping, that is), yet articles like this constantly seek to imply that the Spanish threw their hands up at the first sign of payback.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
I also believe that whatever the opinion polls state now, Brown will be defeated by Cameron at the next election (which of course again will ultimately change very little fundamentally).

If Cameron goes into the election with his current shadow cabinet - 2/3 Old Etonians - he will get creamed.
 
A fascist being anyone who doesn't agree with you eh? I'd disagree, in fact I'd go so far as to say that's a fascist viewpoint and I'd also like to point out that it's not entirely tolerated here which is why you got banned under your old porridge name.

Idle, it seems you've learned absolutely nothing from your involvement in the discussion at the Critiques of Science thread.

Idle, someone (like Vimothy, who you now clearly 'support') whose posts here promote a fundamentally fascist agenda is very reasonably termed a 'fascist'. But we know from your 'reasoning' at the Critiques of Science thread that a fact can be defined as that which is simultaneously a fact and not a fact, and so a fascist can similarly, according to your contradictory (Socrates must be having a hernia) 'reasoning,' be someone who exposes a fascist: whistleblowing a fascist as a fascist is ... fascist!

Idle, it isn't about 'agreeing/disagreeing', its about pointing out that a forum member whose 'contributions' to this forum have been endless hysterical troll 'n' bait posts delirially promoting war, violence, and racist abuse (principally of Muslims) in the guise of 'normal' discourse, that such a poster has unequivocally a FASCIST agenda (he even has a blog devoted to the glorification of War. Against whom, exactly?).

Idle, what you REALLY mean to say, is that those who expose and question pomo FASCISM, should be BANNED from this forum.

Welcome to the Mickey Mouse Club ...

[... which doesn't surprise me in the least (given that many of the sentiments expressed on THIS forum are now structurally indistinguishable from those of neo-fascist websites]

And I should like to point out, Mr Idlewit, that fascism will not be tolerated HERE, and its continued promotion HERE (under the eyes of mods) reminds us very starkly of the horrors of the postmodern 'condition'.
 
War-Criminal For Peace

Robert Fisk: How can Blair possibly be given this job? :

Here is a politician who has failed in everything he has ever tried to do in the Middle East

I suppose that astonishment is not the word for it. Stupefaction comes to mind. I simply could not believe my ears in Beirut when a phone call told me that Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara was going to create "Palestine". I checked the date - no, it was not 1 April - but I remain overwhelmed that this vain, deceitful man, this proven liar, a trumped-up lawyer who has the blood of thousands of Arab men, women and children on his hands is really contemplating being "our" Middle East envoy.

[ ... ]

I recall another man with Blair's pomposity, a certain Kurt Waldheim, who - no longer the UN's boss - actually believed he could be an "envoy" for peace in the Middle East, despite his little wartime career as an intelligence officer for the Wehrmacht's Army Group "E".

His visits - especially to the late King Hussein - came to nothing, of course. But Waldheim's ability to draw a curtain over his wartime past does have one thing in common with Blair. For Waldheim steadfastly, pointedly, repeatedly, refused to acknowledge - ever - that he had ever done anything wrong. Now who does that remind you of?




Adding Insult To Injury: Tony Blair's appointment as Middle East envoy risks wiping out whatever is left of Britain's standing in the Arab world.

When you hear the news of Tony Blair's possible appointment as the Quartet's peace envoy to the Middle East, you don't know whether to laugh or cry. His selection for the job takes American policy in the Middle East to new heights of absurdity. The proposal we all know was put forward and pushed neither by Russia, nor the EU, but by the US as a reward for years of good service. But the decision is lunacy itself. The guiding question could only have been: who is the most profoundly resented and bitterly hated man in the Middle East? Bar Bush, the honour could only have gone to Blair.


Blair's nomination as Quartet envoy not welcomed by Hamas :

"Blair has always worked under the American umbrella and he was behind wars and disasters that are still going on in Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and Lebanon," said Barhoum.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"a fact can be defined as that which is simultaneously a fact and not a fact"
You told me to look it up on wikipedia so I did, guess you didn't like what it said. If you are so adamant that your own pronouncements don't describe "true states of affairs" then that's your problem (although perhaps I wish I hadn't wasted so much time arguing with you about something you don't even believe).

"someone (like Vimothy, who you now clearly 'support')"
I don't "support" him, I just think that he should be allowed to state his views - why exactly is it you are so threatened by his challenges to your dearly held beliefs?

"a forum member whose 'contributions' to this forum have been endless hysterical troll 'n' bait posts delirially promoting war, violence, and racist abuse"
Please not more evasive vilification.

"Idle, what you REALLY mean to say, is that those who expose and question pomo FASCISM, should be BANNED from this forum."
I don't want anyone to be banned even you.
 
Top