Bush The Master And Blair The Puppy!

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.

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.

---

I agree, Skillian-

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:

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:

---

If leaders and soldiers were in any way interchangeable, we could be governed by our armies, then?
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:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+27 March 2003 - 20:54--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 27 March 2003 - 20:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--DiogenesUK@27 March 2003 - 15:19
I&#39;d give the whole shebang (&#33;&#33;&#33;) 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&#39;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&#39;s on telly&nbsp; :huh:

---

If leaders and soldiers were in any way interchangeable, we could be governed by our armies, then?
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".[/b][/quote]
I certainly take on board what you&#39;re saying j2k4,and in essence I agree with you,especially regarding possible &#39;rule&#39; by the military :(

We mustn&#39;t forget,however,that both the UK,and eventually The USA,were under attack themselves during WWII,and we were fighting an invading force in Europe,which seems pretty much how the coalition forces are perceived throughout much of the Arab world,and other many other areas of the world in general today.

Winston Churchill,who was a military man himself,and who had visited troops in the field on many occasions,suffered a landslide defeat in the first general election following WWII,because people had supported the action against the nazis & japanese,but realised,despite their massive sacrifices,that life at &#39;home&#39; wasn&#39;t going to improve for them,as they so rightly deserved.

I don&#39;t believe either of the leaders of the main coalition forces would fit either bill,and I believe their actions are going to bring a lifetime of instability and paranoia to their nations regarding terrorism,if that hasn&#39;t happened already.

Just to put my original point in some perspective,I certainly believe Madass Hussein is a tyrannical despot who needs to be deposed,but Arab/Middle-Eastern values are so utterly different from the comfortable Western values we are privileged to live under,and to expect them to suddenly forget thousands of years of culture/lifestyle is to be naive in the extreme,and some of the media reports are pandering to that naivete with a new level of misinformation/cynicism not seen (in the UK) before.

I&#39;d like to point out also,that I now fully support,in principle,our troops engaged in hostilities throughout Iraq,but my deepest reservations regarding the conflict,and the repercussions remain.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DiogenesUK+28 March 2003 - 12:06--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DiogenesUK @ 28 March 2003 - 12:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by -j2k4@27 March 2003 - 20:54
<!--QuoteBegin--DiogenesUK

---

Quote:

---

@27 March 2003 - 15:19
I&#39;d give the whole shebang (&#33;&#33;&#33;) 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&#39;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&#39;s on telly :huh:

---

If leaders and soldiers were in any way interchangeable, we could be governed by our armies, then?
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".

---

I certainly take on board what you&#39;re saying j2k4,and in essence I agree with you,especially regarding possible &#39;rule&#39; by the military :(

We mustn&#39;t forget,however,that both the UK,and eventually The USA,were under attack themselves during WWII,and we were fighting an invading force in Europe,which seems pretty much how the coalition forces are perceived throughout much of the Arab world,and other many other areas of the world in general today.

Winston Churchill,who was a military man himself,and who had visited troops in the field on many occasions,suffered a landslide defeat in the first general election following WWII,because people had supported the action against the nazis & japanese,but realised,despite their massive sacrifices,that life at &#39;home&#39; wasn&#39;t going to improve for them,as they so rightly deserved.

I don&#39;t believe either of the leaders of the main coalition forces would fit either bill,and I believe their actions are going to bring a lifetime of instability and paranoia to their nations regarding terrorism,if that hasn&#39;t happened already.

Just to put my original point in some perspective,I certainly believe Madass Hussein is a tyrannical despot who needs to be deposed,but Arab/Middle-Eastern values are so utterly different from the comfortable Western values we are privileged to live under,and to expect them to suddenly forget thousands of years of culture/lifestyle is to be naive in the extreme,and some of the media reports are pandering to that naivete with a new level of misinformation/cynicism not seen (in the UK) before.

I&#39;d like to point out also,that I now fully support,in principle,our troops engaged in hostilities throughout Iraq,but my deepest reservations regarding the conflict,and the repercussions remain. [/b][/quote]
Well enough put-
I am aware of Churchill&#39;s history as re: his military service; I feel his succession to primacy after Chamberlain&#39;s failure is the vindication of his foresight. That the Brits were plunged right back into the inferno was, sadly, unavoidable, and history shows that Sir Winston was not unanguished.

I do see Saddam as potentially being this generation&#39;s Hitler; the only question is, where along the developmental timeline does he fall? Even granting that Saddam is 65 years of age, he was going to continue to provoke.
If we had seen fit to stop Hitler after the Sudetenland and his various "leibensraum" quests, I don&#39;t doubt some, (surely Chamberlain amongst them) would have seen that as an invasion.

Slings and arrows are often the payment for preventive measures.
This is proven, fomented, and exacerbated by the media.

As for our future prospects re: terrorism, I fear THAT die was cast a while ago, and we have nothing to lose by attacking the problem any way we deem sensible.
Any other repercussions will have to be dealt with as they arise.

I am not pro-war. I am anti-Saddam.

For what it&#39;s worth.

I thank you j2k4 for your undoubtedly knowledgable reply,and feel I can confirm,without meaning to sound too presumtuous or sycophantic,that we&#39;re essentially on the same &#39;side of the fence&#39; regarding this matter.

I wonder what Zardoz would make of all this &#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:




Keep it real,I wish you all the best.



DiogenesUK

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DiogenesUK@28 March 2003 - 21:09
I thank you j2k4 for your undoubtedly knowledgable reply,and feel I can confirm,without meaning to sound too presumtuous or sycophantic,that we&#39;re essentially on the same &#39;side of the fence&#39; regarding this matter.

I wonder what Zardoz would make of all this &#33;&#33;&#33; &nbsp; :lol:




Keep it real,I wish you all the best.



DiogenesUK

---

I thank YOU for your kind words-

Zardoz would make a hash of this, but that is all. B)


Best to you.

hey I guess then Blair is a real good butt-kisser&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RIPPERX21@28 March 2003 - 23:09
hey I guess then Blair is a real good butt-kisser&#33;

---

I can&#39;t speak to, nor can I discern, your point.

In all non-seriousness, he may be-I just can&#39;t say.

I wonder. Why aren&#39;t the families of the dead soldiers, trying to kill Bush. :unsure:

A message to President Bush. Our marines are getting killed every day at Iraq&#33; Can&#39;t you see that Saddam&#39;s terrorists, I mean army, are ictching for a nuclear bomb? Just give it to them&#33;

Human shields, suicide bombers, wearing bogus American uniforms, acting like civilians, spraying bullets into the civilian crowds, mindless shooting missles, setting fire etc... These thugs are a bunch of assholes, and they need to be treated the same.

Their country my ass&#33; It is my planet (and all of the people&#39;s too) and I don&#39;t tolerate Saddam&#39;s assholes fucking up other people on my planet&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spindulik@29 March 2003 - 13:48
A message to President Bush. Our marines are getting killed every day at Iraq&#33; Can&#39;t you see that Saddam&#39;s terrorists, I mean army, are ictching for a nuclear bomb? Just give it to them&#33;

Human shields, suicide bombers, wearing bogus American uniforms, acting like civilians, spraying bullets into the civilian crowds, mindless shooting missles, setting fire etc... These thugs are a bunch of assholes, and they need to be treated the same.

Their country my ass&#33; It is my planet (and all of the people&#39;s too) and I don&#39;t tolerate Saddam&#39;s assholes fucking up other people on my planet&#33;

---

Hey dude don&#39;t take this the wrong way or anything, but they have human rights ya know.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RIPPERX21@29 March 2003 - 14:02

Hey dude don&#39;t take this the wrong way or anything, but they have human rights ya know.

---

I know what you mean. But my God, it feels like it is getting too much. I want it all to be over.

Yeah, they have human rights too. Nobody said they couldn&#39;t have them, we just want them to be humane to other humans too.

So dropping a nuclear bomb on them is the most humane thing to do?

That&#39;s pretty twisted. <_<

:ninja:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@29 March 2003 - 14:12
So dropping a nuclear bomb on them is the most humane thing to do?

That&#39;s pretty twisted. <_<

:ninja:

---

Thats totally correct.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+26 March 2003 - 18:14--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 26 March 2003 - 18:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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&#39;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&#39;t work but I don&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t agree with some of Blair&#39;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.

---

I agree, Skillian-

Bush as "Uber Blair"?

I think not, especially when everything (well, almost everything) in Blair&#39;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. [/b][/quote]
Blairs &#39;political philosophy&#39; is to be on the winning side.


He was actually a leading &#39;Young Conservative&#39; when it suited him to be.


He has got vision, i cannot deny that...he left The Conservative Party and joined the Labour Party as soon as it became apparent that...although they were currently in power, it was unlikely that they would ever get into power again if they continued with the type of policy they were pursuing.

And he has dragged the Labour Party from the Left wing of politics, kicking and screaming to the Right Wing.

The LibDem, which for the last century has been &#39;the middle ground&#39; now finds itself in the position of being the nearest thing the UK has to a &#39;socialist&#39; party (within the main political spectrum)....despite never having leant to the Left in its Policies.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spindulik@29 March 2003 - 13:48
A message to President Bush. Our marines are getting killed every day at Iraq&#33; Can&#39;t you see that Saddam&#39;s terrorists, I mean army, are ictching for a nuclear bomb? Just give it to them&#33;

Human shields, suicide bombers, wearing bogus American uniforms, acting like civilians, spraying bullets into the civilian crowds, mindless shooting missles, setting fire etc... These thugs are a bunch of assholes, and they need to be treated the same.

Their country my ass&#33; It is my planet (and all of the people&#39;s too) and I don&#39;t tolerate Saddam&#39;s assholes fucking up other people on my planet&#33;

---

From what I&#39;ve been watching lately,it&#39;d probably end up in the North Pole anyway..........&#39;FRIENDLY&#39; fire :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DiogenesUK@27 March 2003 - 09:19
I&#39;d give the whole shebang (&#33;&#33;&#33;) 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&#39;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&#39;s on telly :huh:

---

You don&#39;t know your history.
The leaders of old stopped fighting when it became obvious they could die and then be unable to lead.
You will have to forgive the bold courage and utter stupidity that ended so many great leaders&#39; lives on the battlefield. Men who may otherwise have gone on to create a much better world.
But at that time, the general population was even less intelligent.
They would not follow a leader who was not leading them into battle.
And when the king died, the one who ultimately stepped into his place, cared none at all for his people and was only interested in personal gain.
I think Saddam and Bush would have served us better by slugging it out in a ring, but you and I both know that Saddam would win...He cheats.
And I don&#39;t want to live in a country that is under Saddam&#39;s control.

Do you?

This is a war that was going to happen.

Isn&#39;t it a little moronic on your part to argue whether we should have gone to war at this late hour?

The only question you should now be asking is,
Do you think its a good idea for us to withdraw and leave Saddam thinking he&#39;s won?

Peace

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ne1GotZardoz+29 March 2003 - 16:51--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ne1GotZardoz @ 29 March 2003 - 16:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--DiogenesUK@27 March 2003 - 09:19
I&#39;d give the whole shebang (&#33;&#33;&#33;) 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&#39;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&#39;s on telly&nbsp; :huh:

---

You don&#39;t know your history.
The leaders of old stopped fighting when it became obvious they could die and then be unable to lead.
You will have to forgive the bold courage and utter stupidity that ended so many great leaders&#39; lives on the battlefield. Men who may otherwise have gone on to create a much better world.
But at that time, the general population was even less intelligent.
They would not follow a leader who was not leading them into battle.
And when the king died, the one who ultimately stepped into his place, cared none at all for his people and was only interested in personal gain.
I think Saddam and Bush would have served us better by slugging it out in a ring, but you and I both know that Saddam would win...He cheats.
And I don&#39;t want to live in a country that is under Saddam&#39;s control.

Do you?

This is a war that was going to happen.

Isn&#39;t it a little moronic on your part to argue whether we should have gone to war at this late hour?

The only question you should now be asking is,
Do you think its a good idea for us to withdraw and leave Saddam thinking he&#39;s won?

Peace[/b][/quote]
And where,my cretinous friend,did I ever say that we shouldn&#39;t have gone to war?

I realise you come from a &#39;nation&#39; formed by proudly purging its native population,and thereafter continuing to lose wars against peasants (Korea,Vietnam),a nation which proudly executes adolescents,and happily plagiarises/bastardises most ideas of culture from the world at large.

If all of your present information is coming from CNN/Fox news etc. it&#39;s hardly surprising that you don&#39;t know your ass from your elbow.

Just remember,according to an ever increasing minority of this world,that you&#39;ve been sussed,yet again,for the greedy,wasteful people you are.

Try invading Venezuela to steal oil for your ostentatious 15mpg vehicles next time,it&#39;s just about the right size......you may even win.

I object very strongly to being called moronic by little pieces of amoebic dysentery scum like you incidentally.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DiogenesUK@29 March 2003 - 12:03
And where,my cretinous friend,did I ever say that we shouldn&#39;t have gone to war?

I realise you come from a &#39;nation&#39; formed by proudly purging its native population,and thereafter continuing to lose wars against peasants (Korea,Vietnam),a nation which proudly executes adolescents,and happily plagiarises/bastardises most ideas of culture from the world at large.

If all of your present information is coming from CNN/Fox news etc. it&#39;s hardly surprising that you don&#39;t know your ass from your elbow.

Just remember,according to an ever increasing minority of this world,that you&#39;ve been sussed,yet again,for the greedy,wasteful people you are.

Try invading Venezuela to steal oil for your ostentatious 15mpg vehicles next time,it&#39;s just about the right size......you may even win.

I object very strongly to being called moronic by little pieces of amoebic dysentery scum like you incidentally.

---

I stand corrected.

You didn&#39;t actually say we shouldn&#39;t be at war.

My appologies.

I was so accustomed to people wasting time on here argueing about that issue that I &#39;ass-u-me&#39;d that to be the case here.

However, your assertion that kings should be on the front line?

Right...I can just see the King of England, Bush and Saddam rushing down the two opposing hills toward certain death.
Their RPG&#39;s aimed steady as their troops behind them, lob missiles at each other.

What a smart site that would be. :)
When I say peace, I mean it.

When I say moron, that doesn&#39;t mean I don&#39;t like you.

;)

Peace

Since when has &#39;England&#39; had a king?

And even if we did...they&#39;re a figurehead....please replace by Blaire (who i&#39;d LOVE to see running around in NBC kit in a desert, even if no one was shooting at the blithering little bastard)

Blaire, a coward in the same mold as Bush.

(and the reference to coward has NO bearing on this war, but to past events that showed their colours at those times)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 March 2003 - 13:41
Since when has &#39;England&#39; had a king?

And even if we did...they&#39;re a figurehead....please replace by Blaire (who i&#39;d LOVE to see running around in NBC kit in a desert, even if no one was shooting at the blithering little bastard)

Blaire, a coward in the same mold as Bush.

(and the reference to coward has NO bearing on this war, but to past events that showed their colours at those times)

---

Ok...Queen Elizabeth, Bush and Saddam.

But, uh, isn&#39;t her husband king?

I mean, if she&#39;s the queen and she&#39;s married, wouldn&#39;t that make him a king?

Or am I being silly? :)

As for the lot of them hashing it out on the battle field, you know Saddam would win. He really does cheat. Doesn&#39;t even try to hide it.

I expect that Bush and Her Majesty or Blaire, whichever you decided to let fight your battle, wouldn&#39;t stand a chance one to one.

That would mean Saddam would then be Queen of England and President of the USA, as well as President of his own country.

He could pull it off too.

There are three of him. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

Count em............................1...........2.............3.

And aren&#39;t they cute??
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

But, uh, isn&#39;t her husband king?

I mean, if she&#39;s the queen and she&#39;s married, wouldn&#39;t that make him a king?

---

No.

If you marry a Queen you become a Prince.

Marry a King you become a Queen.


As the Queen is the Monarch, her husband cannot be King....as that would place him above her in the ranking at court....ie: He would be the Monarch

So they get made Duke of Edinburgh instead.


As to Saddam winning.....well he&#39;d have to find Bush n Blaire in whatever hole they&#39;d found to hide in.

Mind...the smell from the backs of their Trousers should make that easy enough....


edit: From a Prince to a Duke........hey that almost makes a song...

are any of you Ex priminister of President?

no until then shut the hell up.. you dont know the decisions that have to make.. you dont know anything about them or the stress theyre life entails...


so leave it out and dont make yourselves looks stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Romeo187@30 March 2003 - 00:00
are any of you Ex priminister of President?

no until then shut the hell up.. you dont know the decisions that have to make.. you dont know anything about them or the stress theyre life entails...


so leave it out and dont make yourselves looks stupid.

---

In a democracy, presidents are elected by the people and they work under the control of the people. It&#39;s healthy that they can be criticized. If they cannot, the system changes to a tyrany.

Anyway if a president cannot manage his stress, he&#39;d better quit. Stress is not a reason to start a war.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@29 March 2003 - 17:22

Quote:

---

But, uh, isn&#39;t her husband king?

I mean, if she&#39;s the queen and she&#39;s married, wouldn&#39;t that make him a king?

---

No.

If you marry a Queen you become a Prince.

Marry a King you become a Queen.


As the Queen is the Monarch, her husband cannot be King....as that would place him above her in the ranking at court....ie: He would be the Monarch

So they get made Prince of Edinburgh instead.

---

Ok, I&#39;m beginning to see a fatal flaw it British logic.

Could it be that you believe the king would have to be superior to the queen because of the way a chess game is played?

From now on, out of great respect for Great Britain, England and her Queen, I henceforth command that the queen shall be the lazy peice in a game of chess and the king shall be capturable.

Also, from this day forward, let it be know far and wide, that the king in chess is no longer a king...he&#39;s a duke.

Nope...Sorry dude...

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and the husband of a queen is a king, no matter the name you inflict upon him.

Peace to you though.

I&#39;ve enjoyed the info.

All these years, I never knew the queen was sexist. :)

Peace dude

Quote:

---

Also, from this day forward, let it be know far and wide, that the king in chess is no longer a king...he&#39;s a duke.

---

Yep...you caught me....."Duke of Edinburgh" not Prince lmao

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Romeo187@29 March 2003 - 23:00
are any of you Ex priminister of President?

no until then shut the hell up.. you dont know the decisions that have to make.. you dont know anything about them or the stress theyre life entails...


so leave it out and dont make yourselves looks stupid.

---

If you read the whole thread Romeo....you would see that the cowardice accusation has NOTHING to do with the war.....and its BEFORE they were in Office :P


So i&#39;ll stand by it m8

I think you might find that chess is based on royalty, not royalty on chess, like WW2 was fought before MOHAA, it wasn&#39;t based on the game :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leecheskicked@31 March 2003 - 01:40
I think you might find that chess is based on royalty, not royalty on chess, like WW2 was fought before MOHAA, it wasn&#39;t based on the game :rolleyes:

---

Right&#33;

Then we definately must correct the game to reflect the present reality. :)

Hey&#33; hey&#33; hey&#33; dudes getting way outta topic,man. Just think about what the iraqi ppl are feelin like.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 March 2003 - 10:42

Quote:

---

Also, from this day forward, let it be know far and wide, that the king in chess is no longer a king...he&#39;s a duke.

---

Yep...you caught me....."Duke of Edinburgh" not Prince lmao

---

Yeah, but it&#39;s "Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh", so he gets the best of both worlds :lol:



He can&#39;t be king though, because you have to be born into the royal bloodline to be the Monarch. (Never mind though, it&#39;s only for the tourists anyway...) ;)

:wub:
I in love with Jenna jameson and Aria Giovanni&#33;