Bush The Master And Blair The Puppy!

[MagicNakor]

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

That's pretty twisted.

[RIPPERX21]

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

That's pretty twisted.

Thats totally correct.

[Rat Faced]

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 ). 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.

[DiogenesUK]

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

[ne1GotZardoz]

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

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

[DiogenesUK]

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;

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.

[ne1GotZardoz]

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

[Rat Faced]

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)

[ne1GotZardoz]

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.

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

And aren&#39;t they cute??

[Rat Faced]

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...