Tony Blair: The Country Needs Me

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,105
I'd like to meet someone who does.

The electorate of Sedgefield maybe? Oh how I'd have laughed if they had elected Reg Keys as an independent a few years ago. Dear oh dear, Miliband needs assistance for sure in convincing the electorate that he's a credible PM, but God help us all if Blair is the best he can turn to.
 

Butts

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
9,286
The electorate of Sedgefield maybe? Oh how I'd have laughed if they had elected Reg Keys as an independent a few years ago. Dear oh dear, Miliband needs assistance for sure in convincing the electorate that he's a credible PM, but God help us all if Blair is the best he can turn to.

Some people seem to have short memories - he won three General Elections:lol:

Perhaps if Cameron loses the next election Blair will replace him as leader of The Conservative Party:p
 

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,105
True :lol: If he did though, would anybody notice the difference?

Well, he did lead the Electable wing of the Tory party from 1997 onwards!:) Given that post-Cameron, the Tories will be devoid of anyone other than Boris who'll have any capability of being leader, maybe an SOS call to Blair isn't just a classic p###take!:)
 

Butts

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
9,286
35.2% hardly qualifies him to be able to stand up as a paragon of Democracy, though, does it.

You can only operate within the system put in front of you to be fair.

Sounds like you should look up here for democracy in action our local elections have just been held with PR in action - hence most councils are coalitions.

The Scottish Parliament Elections are a form of PR as well.

In fact the only FTP we have is for Westminster.

Why are you taking so long to get the message PR can work and already exists in the UK despite what the London Media may think:p
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Blair is more than free to return once he has stood trial at the Hague on charges of war crimes...

What absolute nonsense I suppose you would have put Winston Churchill on trial for Dresden et al:p
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,846
What absolute nonsense I suppose you would have put Winston Churchill on trial for Dresden et al:p

I do not. WW2 was totally different. WW2 was an international threat - if Britain, France et al hadn't acted then it would have changed the face of Western Europe (and you could argue further afield too) forever. The only thing that would have stopped Hitler was Britain etc doing something. The situation in Iraq was totally different - they weren't planning to take over the world, they weren't planning to start wars, there was nothing even remotely comparable to Nazi Germany. Blair and Bush led Britain into an unjust war on an innocent country whose troubles could have been solved numerous other ways than war and death to thousands. Blair and anyone else involved in Iraq should be ashamed of themselves, they have the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqis; young, old, male and female on their hands, and should be brought to justice.

Would you also please mind telling me why you put ':P' in every post, even when it is totally unsuited? Thanks.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,696
Location
Redcar
Why are you taking so long to get the message PR can work and already exists in the UK despite what the London Media may think

Because the media doesn't like coalitions. The idea of political parties attempting to work together rather than stab each other in the back does not sit well with them. Consequently it also does not sit well the population at large and to be fair this country has always operated on the basis of having a strong government rather than one that is made of various parts, so there's probably an element of 'better the devil you know' to it as well.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
What absolute nonsense I suppose you would have put Winston Churchill on trial for Dresden et al:p

Churchill came to power in response to Hitler's invasion of France, nine months after the war had started in response to Hitler's invasion of Poland; it was hardly as if he decided to invade a Germany that was no threat to anyone. In short, as Basil Fawlty would say: "they started it".
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,846
Churchill came to power in response to Hitler's invasion of France, nine months after the war had started in response to Hitler's invasion of Poland; it was hardly as if he decided to invade a Germany that was no threat to anyone. In short, as Basil Fawlty would say: "they started it".

Quite. I can't imagine that you could have dealt with Hitler in sit-down civilised talks as you could have had in Iraq's case. Remember also that Churchill was the only member of the 1930s Cabinet to suspect Hitler had darker intentions, and was thrown out as a result of the rest of the Cabinet thinking he was deeply mistaken and wrong for thinking such!
 

Butts

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
9,286
I do not. WW2 was totally different. WW2 was an international threat - if Britain, France et al hadn't acted then it would have changed the face of Western Europe (and you could argue further afield too) forever. The only thing that would have stopped Hitler was Britain etc doing something. The situation in Iraq was totally different - they weren't planning to take over the world, they weren't planning to start wars, there was nothing even remotely comparable to Nazi Germany. Blair and Bush led Britain into an unjust war on an innocent country whose troubles could have been solved numerous other ways than war and death to thousands. Blair and anyone else involved in Iraq should be ashamed of themselves, they have the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqis; young, old, male and female on their hands, and should be brought to justice.

Would you also please mind telling me why you put ':P' in every post, even when it is totally unsuited? Thanks.

Surely indiscriminate bombing of civilians would by your logic be a crime whatever precipitated it - or are you saying in certain circumstances it is acceptable and in others not ?

With the Iraq situation the problem was not going in , but the lack of a plan of what to do afterwards.

As for the :p force of habit :oops:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Quite. I can't imagine that you could have dealt with Hitler in sit-down civilised talks as you could have had in Iraq's case. Remember also that Churchill was the only member of the 1930s Cabinet to suspect Hitler had darker intentions, and was thrown out as a result of the rest of the Cabinet thinking he was deeply mistaken and wrong for thinking such!

And what you have failed to mention is the Russians invaded Poland from the other side at the same time .

I would say Hitler or Saddam talks would have been akin to "herding cats"
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,645
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Going back to the subject of the leadership of Britain, would Tony Blair have time to fit this position into his existing financially lucrative portfolio of "Guardian of The Middle East", of being one of the top earners on the lecture-tour circuit in America, etc, etc,....the wonder is why he did not also apply for the position of the next manager of the England Football Team...<D

Incidentally, the Vatican are said to be looking for a someone less controversial to front-up their political organisation and Tony Blair now appears to have all the correct religious requirements said to be essential to that position.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2011
Messages
617
Location
Wolverhampton
I'd vote for him.

The third time with a popular vote of 35.2%, the lowest of any majority government in British history, yes.
Not really a fair statement, for if it was any less it would be a minority government, which have existed...
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
Going back to the subject of the leadership of Britain, would Tony Blair have time to fit this position into his existing financially lucrative portfolio of "Guardian of The Middle East", of being one of the top earners on the lecture-tour circuit in America, etc, etc,....the wonder is why he did not also apply for the position of the next manager of the England Football Team...<D

Incidentally, the Vatican are said to be looking for a someone less controversial to front-up their political organisation and Tony Blair now appears to have all the correct religious requirements said to be essential to that position.

If that happened, then I would believe all the prophecies about the End Times being at hand...

has anyone checked on the back of Tony's head for a number (333 x 2, perhaps) tattooed on the back of his head, have they....?

(Incidentally, I believe they had Harry Redknapp lined up for the position of Goodwill Ambassador to the Middle East, but Tony beat him to it .. )
 

deltic1989

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2010
Messages
1,483
Location
Nottingham
Blair and anyone else involved in Iraq should be ashamed of themselves, they have the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqis; young, old, male and female on their hands, and should be brought to justice.

--------removed by author, can't be bothered to argue the point--------
 
Last edited:

NY Yankee

On Moderation
Joined
26 Mar 2012
Messages
487
Location
New York City
I do not. WW2 was totally different. WW2 was an international threat - if Britain, France et al hadn't acted then it would have changed the face of Western Europe (and you could argue further afield too) forever. The only thing that would have stopped Hitler was Britain etc doing something. The situation in Iraq was totally different - they weren't planning to take over the world, they weren't planning to start wars, there was nothing even remotely comparable to Nazi Germany. Blair and Bush led Britain into an unjust war on an innocent country whose troubles could have been solved numerous other ways than war and death to thousands. Blair and anyone else involved in Iraq should be ashamed of themselves, they have the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqis; young, old, male and female on their hands, and should be brought to justice.

Would you also please mind telling me why you put ':P' in every post, even when it is totally unsuited? Thanks.

Blair was a pawn of George W. Bush. Bush claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq was behind 9/11, but both allegations were proven to be false. Saddam Hussein wasn't the nicest guy in the world, but he was not an imminent threat. In fact, Hussein hated Bin Laden since he wanted Iraq to be secular. The whole Iraq invasion was about oil. After the US dragged the UK into Iraq, terrorists responded by attacking the Tube in 2005. Don't let Blair lie to you again. Both Blair and Bush are criminals.
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,491
Location
Birmingham
Blair is more than free to return once he has stood trial at the Hague on charges of war crimes...

What absolute nonsense I suppose you would have put Winston Churchill on trial for Dresden et al:p

Winners being guilty of war crimes is a very recent phenomenon. Tony Blair, with his unswerving faith in his conviction that he's right in the face of all evidence, would be much better served in the church
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Not once has his name being deliberately misspelt. In unrelated news has Old Timer posted recently?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,696
Location
Redcar
Saddam Hussein wasn't the nicest guy in the world

Pardon? Not the nicest guy in the world? A slight understatement there don't you think?

When he took power he had 22 members of the Ba'ath Party executed (by the former party members) along with hundreds more members of his own party over the years that followed.

Then there was the Al-Anfal Campaign. This was the genocide of the Kurdish people in Iraq, which included a chemical weapons attack on the town of Halabja in 1988. Here the Iraqi Air Force deployed a combination of Mustard Gas (the same weapon used in WW1) as well as Nerve Agents like Sarin and VX. Somewhere between 3,200 and 5,000 were killed along with around 10,000 injured in the attack. As for the Kurdish population at large the Al-Anfal Campaign killed an estimated 182,000 civilians (though they range all the way up to 300,000).

There is also the Dujail massacre (the event that he was hanged for). A failed assassination attempt led to the deaths of 148 people and many more were probably beaten and tortured.

The Iran-Iraq war which ran between 1980 and 1988. Here again chemical weapons were used against Iranian soldiers (the effects of which are still being felt, no doubt, by the survivors). Whilst the conflict at large led to the deaths of in excess of a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers (and set both nations economic and social development back by a decade or more).

There are various estimates for how many people Saddam's regime killed. The New York Times obituary estimated it at one million (excluding the Iran-Iraq war) and there are other estimates that whilst slightly lower are still in excess of 500,000 deaths (again excluding the million killed in the Iran-Iraq war).

So yeah not the nicest guy in the world.

To be honest, whatever the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003, I don't think that it was a bad thing that man such as Saddam Hussein was removed from power (though I'd have rather seen him tried by the International Criminal Court). Indeed to my mind the biggest failing of all wasn't going to war on faulty information and more that we didn't have a workable plan for the aftermath of removing the existing government (and indeed removing the entire machinery of government as well).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top