Printable View
First of all I would like to say 'Blood doesn't mix with oil!'. To me Bush is the master and Blair is the dog. Blair is seeting up with Bush only for the oil. After that they will backstab eachother. To me thats the case. Let me hear what u think. B)
Blair was getting loads of flack before the war.
Now the tables are turning for him.
I think he is a lapdog and a brown nose.
I wont be voting for him again :D
Personally I think Blair has had an extremely tough time of this whole situation - maybe the toughest of any leader in the world (apart from maybe Sadaam :P ). He is really the very last link between America and Europe, so it is not easy for him just to do what he feels without considering the rest of the world. Blair understands how very important it is to keep a relationship between America and Europe, and was the only leader that could possibly have persuaded Bush to go down the UN route (even though it eventually didn't work). He was also the only leader that was willing to suggest and table a compromise in the a second resolution before the war started (again it didn't work but I don't think you can blame him for that).
When the war is over, again it will be up to Blair to persuade George Bush to let the UN handle the running of an interim government, as if it was up to Bush I think he would prefer one run by the US.
Think about how much worse this situation could be if Blair wasn't able to try to appeal to both sides (Europe and America). I think Blair is the only leader that can exert some sort of pressure on Bush and make a difference in his decisions.
While it is true that I don't agree with some of Blair's decisions, I truly believe he is trying to do the best for the world and his country, and when he is asked he is more than willing to explain himself and justify his decisions. Personally I think he has done a good job, and is making his place in history.
Well spoken skillian...and though I did not vote for President Bush,I, like all Americans should be supportive of our country in times like these.
I do feel that Mr Blair is trying to keep in with the in crowd.
I do realise other countries opposed the war and stood by that.
Can you imagine what would have happened had Blair decided
he would go with the other countries ?
I feel his hands were tied and had no alternative but to "go with it"
He will go down in history no matter what but is it for the right reasons ?
I certainly opposed the war but I do feel now its the right decision.
There will be a massive knock on effect for the uk and billions will have to be pumped
back in to the country.We are suffering right now due to this war.
Maybe we should get our own country in order before making up the numbers to fight
in a war that so many backed out of.
I agree, Skillian-Quote:
Originally posted by Skillian@26 March 2003 - 18:52
Personally I think Blair has had an extremely tough time of this whole situation - maybe the toughest of any leader in the world (apart from maybe Sadaam :P ). He is really the very last link between America and Europe, so it is not easy for him just to do what he feels without considering the rest of the world. Blair understands how very important it is to keep a relationship between America and Europe, and was the only leader that could possibly have persuaded Bush to go down the UN route (even though it eventually didn't work). He was also the only leader that was willing to suggest and table a compromise in the a second resolution before the war started (again it didn't work but I don't think you can blame him for that).
When the war is over, again it will be up to Blair to persuade George Bush to let the UN handle the running of an interim government, as if it was up to Bush I think he would prefer one run by the US.
Think about how much worse this situation could be if Blair wasn't able to try to appeal to both sides (Europe and America). I think Blair is the only leader that can exert some sort of pressure on Bush and make a difference in his decisions.
While it is true that I don't agree with some of Blair's decisions, I truly believe he is trying to do the best for the world and his country, and when he is asked he is more than willing to explain himself and justify his decisions. Personally I think he has done a good job, and is making his place in history.
Bush as "Uber Blair"?
I think not, especially when everything (well, almost everything) in Blair's political philosophy indicates he would have gone in any direction other than one Bush went.
That his current stance is such a departure from his norm serves only to vindicate his views vis a vis Iraq.
To quote myself in an earlier post, "Blair is standing tall in a pretty stiff breeze".
For that, too, he has MY respect.
One more thing I forgot-
I extend my respect (and sincere affection) to ALL Brits.
ESPECIALLY YOU, ALAN-YA' FECKIN' NOOB!!!
I'd give the whole shebang (!!!) a lot more credibility if Butch & Blur had the courage of their convictions,and were prepared to put themselves in the vanguard of the fighting,much like leaders did at one time.
It must be mighty satisfying,in some perverse way,to send your youngest & finest to die,whilst you cavort around the media,thousands of miles away, pretending to be the hard man.
I also happen to think,as the media here pointed out,that Butch is more likely to be Blur's Rottweiller,after all,he drools & slavers like one,and appears to have that required insane gene just barely lurking beneath the surface.
Just watch his eyes next time he's on telly :huh:
If leaders and soldiers were in any way interchangeable, we could be governed by our armies, then?Quote:
Originally posted by DiogenesUK@27 March 2003 - 15:19
I'd give the whole shebang (!!!) a lot more credibility if Butch & Blur had the courage of their convictions,and were prepared to put themselves in the vanguard of the fighting,much like leaders did at one time.
It must be mighty satisfying,in some perverse way,to send your youngest & finest to die,whilst you cavort around the media,thousands of miles away, pretending to be the hard man.
I also happen to think,as the media here pointed out,that Butch is more likely to be Blur's Rottweiller,after all,he drools & slavers like one,and appears to have that required insane gene just barely lurking beneath the surface.
Just watch his eyes next time he's on telly :huh:
Leaders are (in modern times anyway) SUPPOSED to avoid the "front". In WWII, do you think Britain could have benefitted from Churchill, instead of, say, Montgomery leading the troops? Of course, maybe you thought Winston had the "insane" gene, too.
To suppose either Bush or Blair is "mighty satisfied" at the prospect of sending our youngest and finest to die is, in itself, "perverse".
If only it was the other way round, with Blair (the brains) in charge, and Bush (the dimwit) as his lapdog :angry: