Will Blair Face Consequenses

[jetje]

For lying and cheating to their own parlements and all the citizens of the world about the danger thread Iraq was according to them?

[Illuminati]

Personally, my opinion is that if Blair doesn't get lynched by the public in the near future it will bite him in the arse come the next general election. Then again, considering the "opposition" (IDS - In Deep S**t :D), I'm guessing those same elections will be a shambles. It'll look to be an election where Lib Dem gets into power again.

As for Bush, god knows when - Hopefully Russia or whoever else assassinates the guy because I can't see him facing international retribution on the political stage. Unless the UN regains their balls and force Bush with/without Blair to face the War Crimes Courts, Dumbya's likely to get away scot free. Which IMO pisses me off, but that's just my opinion.

[clocker]

Surely Illuminati, you aren't advocating assassination as the method of choice for the angry?

Bush faces re-election in 2004. We'll see what happens.
Were he to be killed, any faults/sins/screwups would be glossed over and forgotten in the process of his canonization. And if you think America has acted rashly and without justification to date, just assassinate our leader. The response would be catastrophic and far in excess of anything you've seen yet.

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by clocker@4 June 2003 - 20:43
Surely Illuminati, you aren't advocating assassination as the method of choice for the angry?
Oops, did I say assassination? I meant unintentional vigilante justice ;)

Still, considering what's happened in the Middle East during Bush's term, I sure as hell wouldn't put it past any person there to think about doing such a thing. Maybe it's me, but if it did happen I wouldn't expect the world outside America to weep as much as was done at 9/11.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Illuminati@4 June 2003 - 13:48


Still, considering what's happened in the Middle East during Bush's term, I sure as hell wouldn't put it past any person there to think about doing such a thing. Maybe it's me, but if it did happen I wouldn't expect the world outside America to weep as much as was done at 9/11.
Were Bush to be killed at the hands of a foreign national there would indeed be less weeping.
We will have nuked his entire county and cinders don't cry.
Are you acquainted with the phrase "Kill'em all and let God sort 'em out later"?

Imagine that adopted as our new foreign policy and you'll get my drift...

[Illuminati]

Originally posted by clocker@4 June 2003 - 21:13
Are you acquainted with the phrase "Kill'em all and let God sort 'em out later"?Imagine that adopted as our new foreign policy and you'll get my drift...
You mean you don't use it now?!?! Looks like it from where I'm standing :D

Side note - Yes I'm acquainted with it, but I usually know it as 'Kill them all. Let God sort them out'

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Illuminati@4 June 2003 - 18:25
Personally, my opinion is that if Blair doesn't get lynched by the public in the near future it will bite him in the arse come the next general election. Then again, considering the "opposition" (IDS - In Deep S**t :D), I'm guessing those same elections will be a shambles. It'll look to be an election where Lib Dem gets into power again.

As for Bush, god knows when - Hopefully Russia or whoever else assassinates the guy because I can't see him facing international retribution on the political stage. Unless the UN regains their balls and force Bush with/without Blair to face the War Crimes Courts, Dumbya's likely to get away scot free. Which IMO pisses me off, but that's just my opinion.
Unfortunately, due to the 'opposition' in the UK, he will have landslide victory in the next election.

This is because the Labour Party in in vogue at the moment and there is 'feelgood' factor in the economy, but also because NO ONE will vote for those Tories, and a lot of people consider the LibDems a wasted vote (despite them getting quite a large proportion of the electorate)


People dont see how they've been stitched up by the b*****d, I can only hope that he is forced out of office BEFORE a General Election.

At the moment, I predict a new leader of the opposition come election time.....The LibDem, instead of the Tory, but a 3rd Labour term in office. They are gonna have to come up with some new excuses soon though....'inherited from the Conservatives' is sounding very lame at the moment.

[ShockAndAwe^i^]

You know what?
It all won't matter in a few years as GB is in the process of giving up it's
sovereignty. ;)

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@5 June 2003 - 07:10
You know what?
It all won't matter in a few years as GB is in the process of giving up it's
sovereignty. ;)
Erm, no it isnt.

And wont this century....

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@15 June 2003 - 23:23


This "Labour" party is only interested in the Middle income group of the South East.


I have to disagree, being working class, born and bred and living in Glasgow.

One can only speak as one finds the situation however. We had a mortgage and young childer in the 80's. Iwas horrendous. Now it is ok, not perfect but we are getting by.

With regard to tax credits. I have 4 children. Trust me the tax credit in no way covers the sort of expenditure involed. My oldest eats more than that, never mind anything else. I'm sure you are only too well aware of the expense.

However we are way off topic.

I re-iterate. The question is irrelevant. A man of good conscience, acting in good faith, has no consequences to face. I believe the Prime Minister is such a man and that his actions were appropriate, given the situation.

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by JPaul@15 June 2003 - 22:02

The big difference is that we have a seriously healthy economy. Interests rates are lower than they have been for years, if not decades and fewer people are losing their homes because they cannot afford 12% mortgage rates.

Healthy economy? :o

The only reason the economy looks good on paper is because of the housing market and consumer spending boom, most of it funded by massive credit because of low interest rates.

The manufacturing industry is actually suffering zero growth, and this is not likely to improve anytime soon, because imports are so cheap.

Collectively, the British consumer is in debt to something in the order of 7 BILLION pounds! That's hardly what I would call healthy... :unsure:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by barbarossa@16 June 2003 - 08:52
[Collectively, the British consumer is in debt to something in the order of 7 BILLION pounds! That's hardly what I would call healthy...  :unsure:
Only 7 billion pounds?

Pikers! <_<

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by barbarossa+16 June 2003 - 14:52--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (barbarossa @ 16 June 2003 - 14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JPaul@15 June 2003 - 22:02

The big difference is that we have a seriously healthy economy. Interests rates are lower than they have been for years, if not decades and fewer people are losing their homes because they cannot afford 12% mortgage rates.

Healthy economy? :o

The only reason the economy looks good on paper is because of the housing market and consumer spending boom, most of it funded by massive credit because of low interest rates.

The manufacturing industry is actually suffering zero growth, and this is not likely to improve anytime soon, because imports are so cheap.

Collectively, the British consumer is in debt to something in the order of 7 BILLION pounds! That's hardly what I would call healthy... :unsure: [/b][/quote]
I described the economy as healthy because it is. Consumer borrowing is a measure of confidence in the economy. You seem to see this debt as a bad thing. Don't worry, most of it is mine.

Publice sector borrowing is in fine health in fact I believe Mr Brown may have some reserves. He is I believe doing a fine job.

The Markets are happy and posting good results. Last time I looked the FTSE 100 was around 4100.

You may not be content with the UK's economic position, I am.

[Rat Faced]

I re-iterate. The question is irrelevant. A man of good conscience, acting in good faith, has no consequences to face. I believe the Prime Minister is such a man and that his actions were appropriate, given the situation.

Your right, we were getting off topic.

As to your quote...the accusations are that he lied to Parliament and the British people.............. KNOWINGLY LIED.


This is NOT acting in good faith, if true (I do bear in mind it is an ACCUSATION...by our security services that PROVIDED the "evidence")


He then took the country to war against the publics wishes.


We both appear to agree he has no concience ;)

[J'Pol]

RF your points are well made.

However I do not believe that The PM lied to the people (incidentally I believe that lying requires to be knowingly. I do not think you can lie while thinking you are telling the truth).

I believe that his stated reasons for becoming involved were, to the best of his knowledge and based on the evidence available to him, the true reasons. If it transpires that the intelligence he received was incorrect (and that is far from being established) then the fault lies with those who supplied it to him.

That would then open up a whole new debate, did they believe what they said were they deliberately mis-leading the Premier etc.

For now, and until proven otherwise I am willing to accept his word. If alleged murderers and rapists are allowed the presumption of innocence I think the PM deserves the same.

[Rat Faced]

Thats why i have been careful to say "IF" and "ACCUSED".


OK I detest the man, and think he is a turncoat Tory....I wont vote for him in any way or form.


However you are correct; he is innocent of these until proven guilty.

I recall my terms of employment by these very same people...ie "A Civil Servant shall not only be honest, but above suspicion of dishonesty".

If I can be suspended if im "Suspected" of something "Criminal" (pending a full investigation), i think its only right that my boss is in the same position ;)

After all, we are not talking about fiddling his trust fund (like last year) or getting head from a secretary (Mr Clintons favourite)....we are talking about the pre-meditated Killing of people. The US/UK armies may have been the "Gun", but it was Bush/Blaire that pointed it.

It needs to be discovered whether this pre-meditation was based on what he received, or whether he was "selective"...the people that GAVE him the information are saying he was "selective with the truth"....ALLEGEDLY.

This is politicspeak for "lies"


I think that you are "New Labour", and while I would never want an "Old Labour" government (god forbid)...these lot are too right wing for my liking...

Im not "Socialist" enough to take any of the other "Left of Centre" parties, which leaves the LibDems....who are shocked to find themselves on the left instead of centre...without changing any of their policies ;)

[J'Pol]

For clarification.

My Father was a Joiner and my Mother a cleaner in an old folks home. They had 4 children (as do I) and along with my Grandmother all seven of us lived in a 3 bedroom mid terraced house in a small mining village.

All of my uncles, on my mothers side were coal miners. My Maternal Grandfather was a coal miner, my Paternal Grandfather was a Clay Miner. I never met either as they both died years before I was born. I am sure you can work out why.

My Maternal Granmother was widowed in her early thirties with 6 children to raise. One of which, my mother spent two years (11-13) in a convalescent home with tuberculosis. My Grandmother worked as a cleaner in addition to looking after her 6 children. All of whom left school at 14 to start work. I think the oldest boy left at 13. The boys went down the pits and worked at the face. That was the option, that was their life.

I, my friend, am Labour. If you wish I can show you where Kier Hardy was born and lived. I used to pass there on my way to work every day.

[Illuminati]

While it&#39;s great debating about the state of the Labour party, I see one critical flaw which are in both Rat & JPaul&#39;s sides of the argument.

In the 1997 general elections, Blair took pains to claim that he was leading the New Labour party - There are a lot of similarities in between this and the old Labour party (the main one being that New Labour evolved from the original Labour party). But, as I think has been clear this past year, New Labour is not necessarily/automatically the same as old Labour (the main case being the change in their managing the country - Maybe I&#39;m ignorant, but I don&#39;t think I know a war that a Labour PM started. I might be wrong about Chamberlain though - Not sure what party he was with to tell you the truth).

Now I&#39;m hoping that&#39;s helped to clear some things up, considering that I think Rat&#39;s talking about New Labour and JPaul Old Labour. If it did, can both guys reiterate their point? If it didn&#39;t, ignore this (but either way, I&#39;m staying out of the crossfire :ph34r:)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Illuminati@16 June 2003 - 18:56
but I don&#39;t think I know a war that a Labour PM started. I might be wrong about Chamberlain though - Not sure what party he was with to tell you the truth).


You think Neville Chamberlain started the second world war ?

[DanB]

Originally posted by clocker@4 June 2003 - 20:43
Surely Illuminati, you aren&#39;t advocating assassination as the method of choice for the angry?

Bush faces re-election in 2004. We&#39;ll see what happens.
Were he to be killed, any faults/sins/screwups would be glossed over and forgotten in the process of his canonization. And if you think America has acted rashly and without justification to date, just assassinate our leader. The response would be catastrophic and far in excess of anything you&#39;ve seen yet.
Bush&#39;s election in any place was a complete and utter farce&#33; he won on a recount where by his home state provided the winning vote&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol: :lol:



suspect or what? <_<

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by JPaul@16 June 2003 - 17:52
For clarification.

My Father was a Joiner and my Mother a cleaner in an old folks home. They had 4 children (as do I) and along with my Grandmother all seven of us lived in a 3 bedroom mid terraced house in a small mining village.

All of my uncles, on my mothers side were coal miners. My Maternal Grandfather was a coal miner, my Paternal Grandfather was a Clay Miner. I never met either as they both died years before I was born. I am sure you can work out why.

My Maternal Granmother was widowed in her early thirties with 6 children to raise. One of which, my mother spent two years (11-13) in a convalescent home with tuberculosis. My Grandmother worked as a cleaner in addition to looking after her 6 children. All of whom left school at 14 to start work. I think the oldest boy left at 13. The boys went down the pits and worked at the face. That was the option, that was their life.

I, my friend, am Labour. If you wish I can show you where Kier Hardy was born and lived. I used to pass there on my way to work every day.
JPaul,

As I said, I was an activist...including the last General Election.

I was discouraged before it, now i just wont have anything to do with them.

We come from similar backgrounds, except my Grandfathers were Shipyards and Mines, again both dead.....before their time, and my family isnt as large (although both parents families are)

Mothers a Cleaner and Fathers a Bus Driver (but was down the pits when he was 15 ).

3 kids, divorced.....



Illuminatati.

To clarify for you.

I was Labour as they were the party for my class/income, whatever you want to call it. Im a Union Activist in a moderate Union (not affiliated to any party, as its Civil Service)

I welcomed New Labour...Im NOT Old Labour.

I was always against the far left, im a moderate.

What i am, is disillusioned...as i have seen my Party hijacked by a failed Tory, and its policies become more and more Right Wing.

The LibDem is more left wing than the Labour Party now, and so i am migrating.

JPaul doesnt agree, and still believes in Labour, Im glad for him...

If they come back from the Tory policies, I&#39;ll go back.

I dont look at myself as betraying the Labour Party...I look at myself as sticking by MY beliefs...its the Party that has changed.


As JPaul will tell you, that is my OPINION....it is a subjective matter.

I respect JPs opinion in the matter, im sure he understands mine...I dont think we&#39;re as far apart as we seem here ;)

[DanB]

Originally posted by JPaul@16 June 2003 - 11:06



I re-iterate. The question is irrelevant. A man of good conscience, acting in good faith, has no consequences to face. I believe the Prime Minister is such a man and that his actions were appropriate, given the situation. [/quote]
i agree completely.What Saddam was doing and had done before signed his own &#39;death&#39; warrant so to speak. Its a shame it was finished off by Bush snr during the first Gulf War when we accepted the surrender and backed off.



As for fabricating evidence? Surely we didnt want the oil that bad&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

[J'Pol]

I&#39;m a Socialist. The Labour Party has just always been the closest to my political views so I have supported them. If I ever see a party closer I will support them.

We are probably very similar RF, cut from the same stone I suspect. I more than respect your opinion mate.

2 Points however

None of my children are divorced yet, I am sad that your three are.

You really need to stop driving this topic of course and spamming it. You drag me with you every time.

(I really do deserve that title.)

[Illuminati]

Okay guys, I was just trying to contribute a point - I had no idea whether it was something overlooked.

I&#39;ll shut up now :(


You think Neville Chamberlain started the second world war ?

I know it was Hitler that started it in the first place, but someone had to kick-start our part in the war. And I sure as f*** know that it wasn&#39;t Churchill who started it off (but he did finish it).

EDIT - Noticed JPaul&#39;s quote about Chamberlain and re-iterated what I meant.
EDIT - Noticed a mistake highlighted by JPaul and corrected it. Sorry JPaul&#33; :)

[myfiles3000]

The Guardian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cook doubts Saddam threat

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Tuesday June 17, 2003

Former foreign secretary Robin Cook today dealt a series of devastating blows to the government&#39;s case for a war against Iraq, saying that it was "now clear that Saddam Hussein did not represent a &#39;clear and serious threat&#39;".

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Illuminati@17 June 2003 - 07:04
And I sure as f*** know that it was Churchill who started it off (but he did finish it).&nbsp;

EDIT - Noticed JPaul&#39;s quote about Chamberlain and re-iterated what I meant.
Neville Chamberlain was educated at Rugby and spent part of his life running his fathers plantation (in the Bahamas). He was a tory MP and went on to lead the party.

He carried out a policy of appeasement, saying that the Germans had been hard done by in and after WW1 and didn&#39;t want to fall out with them again. When Britain was forced into WW2 the other parties would not form a Government with him so he stood down as leader of the tory party.

Churchill took over and formed a Government with himself as leader.

So Chamberlain was the Tory PM when the war started. He was not Labour as you conjectured. Churchill was not the leader at commencement of official hostility as you seem to think.

[Rat Faced]

Churchill was warning the country about Hitler and the Nazis for about a decade before the war, however he never took over untill AFTER war had been declared.

The Labour party were elected AFTER the war had finished, partly due to Churchill wanting to fight the Russians and throw them out of the countries they had "Liberated"......the country was far too sick of war by this time to throw up the opportunity of peace.

[Illuminati]

(Bangs head on wall) - I hate it when I type the opposite of what I meant :angry:

I had no idea whether Chamberlain was Tory or Labour; I even said that at the start. I wasn&#39;t sure whether to rule him out as Labour or Tory, but I said it could have been either for someone else to sort out. Thanks for that, but as I even said that I wasn&#39;t sure you could have been a little less aggressive and a bit more understanding about it :unsure:

As for Churchill, I did mean "But I sure as f*** know that it was NOT Churchill who started the war." If I did mean to say that he started the war, then why did I mention Chamberlain then? That&#39;s my defence, but it was a slip of the tongue (or finger - Take your pick). That was Year 9 History - Should go back to learning more English though after that mistake ;)

I&#39;ve edited it to highlight my mistake.

[J'Pol]

I also liked his tanks to the Clydebank shipyards idea.

However once again RF leads us off topic. Who is going to moderate this mod.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by JPaul@17 June 2003 - 12:22
I also liked his tanks to the Clydebank shipyards idea.

However once again RF leads us off topic. Who is going to moderate this mod.
Rat mangles his Mod duties as he mingles with the riff-raff, yes? :lol: :lol: B)

[Rat Faced]

Erm.....I didnt lead off topic that time.


I just agreed with JP... :P

[J'Pol]

You two are such spammers. For shame.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2003 - 13:11
Erm.....I didnt lead off topic that time.


I just agreed with JP... :P
Ah, the perils of empathizing with JPaul...... :huh:

Now I have angered my board-mate Rat at the instigation of the fiendishly clever J&#39;Pol. :angry:

Time to go to work for me, lads- <_<

Enjoy. :D

[Neil__]

Originally posted by jetje@4 June 2003 - 18:34
For lying and cheating to their own parlements and all the citizens of the world about the danger thread Iraq was according to them?



Depends how long they can fend off a public enquiry because which ever country has one first then the other cant avoid it any more.

So Jetje When is blair going to crack?
and will he?

Neil

[denis123]

Slow down Neil, your on all the topics at the same time.

Perhaps it would be better to concentrate on one?

[Neil__]

Originally posted by denis123@6 July 2003 - 19:35
Slow down Neil, your on all the topics at the same time.

Perhaps it would be better to concentrate on one?



I&#39;m sorry if I&#39;m going too fast for you.
try to keep up.

Only joking.

Neil.