Why is Tony Blair so unpopular?
Discussion
thismonkeyhere said:
audidoody said:
Bob Dylan wrote a song about him in 1962:
"Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul"
Great words. Which song is that?"Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul"
Personally I'd say f
k my dead soul, give me money now!"Masters Of War"
From "The Freewheelin Bob Dylan"
Written as a rant against the White House and US military-industrial complex. But its relevance to Blair and Bush and Iraq is uncanny.
ETA: I'd agree that "A Satisfied Mind" should also be a lesson for Tone.
Lyrics to live by (look 'em up)
From "The Freewheelin Bob Dylan"
Written as a rant against the White House and US military-industrial complex. But its relevance to Blair and Bush and Iraq is uncanny.
ETA: I'd agree that "A Satisfied Mind" should also be a lesson for Tone.
Lyrics to live by (look 'em up)
Edited by audidoody on Thursday 13th August 13:21
andy-xr said:
As a leader and politician he was absolutely brilliant, a bit too good for what was needed. Super slick, super composed, super friendly with those he needed to be friendly with, and when he saw what was coming, he handed it over for a clown to take the fall for the next couple of years before they got unelected. Epic good timing and grip on what he wanted to do, and fk the rest of them
His problem was that he wasnt doing all the right things, infact he was doing the wrong things, and that's OK when you've got support (remember the Support the Troops stuff in Iraq and all the shoulder to shoulder with the US) and if that works you can say confidently that you fked up, time to try a different path.
But spinning his way out of things that were as clear as day kind of showed him up towards the end, it went too slimy. I think he'd taken it as far as he could with what he could get away with under Labour and what they stood for, and I think if he'd still had the motivation and a bit more spend available he'd have called it the Tony Blair party and done whatever he wanted.
If I could write as eloquently as this, this would be a copy of my post. k the rest of them His problem was that he wasnt doing all the right things, infact he was doing the wrong things, and that's OK when you've got support (remember the Support the Troops stuff in Iraq and all the shoulder to shoulder with the US) and if that works you can say confidently that you f
ked up, time to try a different path. But spinning his way out of things that were as clear as day kind of showed him up towards the end, it went too slimy. I think he'd taken it as far as he could with what he could get away with under Labour and what they stood for, and I think if he'd still had the motivation and a bit more spend available he'd have called it the Tony Blair party and done whatever he wanted.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Whether he believed the falsehoods or not, I don't know.The essence of your post is reasonably accurate - here comes a however.
However, servicemen and women should FULLY understand the implications of what things mean when they sign up. They are all volunteers, they should accept that they may be sent to fight in an 'unjust' war. 'Unjust' in whose opinion? The Prime Minister of the day? Korea, Vietnam, Suez, Iraq, lots of people would say that all of those were wrong.
This is what happens when you volunteer to serve in the forces. You don't get a choice of which wars you want to fight in. You could back mentally or physically crippled - or not come back at all.
Yes, I have served in the forces. I have seen men protesting that they didn't want to serve overseas. Fat chance!
The Mad Monk said:
Whether he believed the falsehoods or not, I don't know.
The essence of your post is reasonably accurate - here comes a however.
However, servicemen and women should FULLY understand the implications of what things mean when they sign up. They are all volunteers, they should accept that they may be sent to fight in an 'unjust' war. 'Unjust' in whose opinion? The Prime Minister of the day? Korea, Vietnam, Suez, Iraq, lots of people would say that all of those were wrong.
This is what happens when you volunteer to serve in the forces. You don't get a choice of which wars you want to fight in. You could back mentally or physically crippled - or not come back at all.
Yes, I have served in the forces. I have seen men protesting that they didn't want to serve overseas. Fat chance!
And the Iraqi civilians? It wasn't just troops that were killed and maimed.The essence of your post is reasonably accurate - here comes a however.
However, servicemen and women should FULLY understand the implications of what things mean when they sign up. They are all volunteers, they should accept that they may be sent to fight in an 'unjust' war. 'Unjust' in whose opinion? The Prime Minister of the day? Korea, Vietnam, Suez, Iraq, lots of people would say that all of those were wrong.
This is what happens when you volunteer to serve in the forces. You don't get a choice of which wars you want to fight in. You could back mentally or physically crippled - or not come back at all.
Yes, I have served in the forces. I have seen men protesting that they didn't want to serve overseas. Fat chance!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tony-blair-re...
Tony Blair 'rejected Hillsborough inquiry as a favour for Rupert Murdoch' says headline.
Tony Blair 'rejected Hillsborough inquiry as a favour for Rupert Murdoch' says headline.
At a personal level the only positive things about Blair's term in office were:
- the schadenfreude of seeing lefty friends who elected him as the new messiah having to eat their words a few years later;
- the long term damage done to to the image of the Labour Party by Phoney Tony and Winky.
Doesn't make up for the damage done by waging an unjustified war and the years of blowing the national budget out of the water, but we have to seek satisfaction where we can find it!
He's a lying fker and I'm surprised that he dares show his face in public.
- the schadenfreude of seeing lefty friends who elected him as the new messiah having to eat their words a few years later;
- the long term damage done to to the image of the Labour Party by Phoney Tony and Winky.
Doesn't make up for the damage done by waging an unjustified war and the years of blowing the national budget out of the water, but we have to seek satisfaction where we can find it!
He's a lying f
ker and I'm surprised that he dares show his face in public.He is/was totally self-serving - not a place any 'decent' sack-cloth and ashes true socialist should be comfortable with.
His appeal to champagne socialists 'doing it for the image' is/was equally unappealing - as are 'champagne socialists'
I rather dislike champagne myself - highly overrated.
If poeple want 'socialism' then at least Jeremy Corbyn should be able to provide - and be judged through democracy.
His appeal to champagne socialists 'doing it for the image' is/was equally unappealing - as are 'champagne socialists'
I rather dislike champagne myself - highly overrated.
If poeple want 'socialism' then at least Jeremy Corbyn should be able to provide - and be judged through democracy.
maffski said:
The Mad Monk said:
Whether he believed the falsehoods or not, I don't know.
The essence of your post is reasonably accurate - here comes a however.
However, servicemen and women should FULLY understand the implications of what things mean when they sign up. They are all volunteers, they should accept that they may be sent to fight in an 'unjust' war. 'Unjust' in whose opinion? The Prime Minister of the day? Korea, Vietnam, Suez, Iraq, lots of people would say that all of those were wrong.
This is what happens when you volunteer to serve in the forces. You don't get a choice of which wars you want to fight in. You could back mentally or physically crippled - or not come back at all.
Yes, I have served in the forces. I have seen men protesting that they didn't want to serve overseas. Fat chance!
And the Iraqi civilians? It wasn't just troops that were killed and maimed.The essence of your post is reasonably accurate - here comes a however.
However, servicemen and women should FULLY understand the implications of what things mean when they sign up. They are all volunteers, they should accept that they may be sent to fight in an 'unjust' war. 'Unjust' in whose opinion? The Prime Minister of the day? Korea, Vietnam, Suez, Iraq, lots of people would say that all of those were wrong.
This is what happens when you volunteer to serve in the forces. You don't get a choice of which wars you want to fight in. You could back mentally or physically crippled - or not come back at all.
Yes, I have served in the forces. I have seen men protesting that they didn't want to serve overseas. Fat chance!
The Mad Monk said:
This is what happens when you volunteer to serve in the forces. You don't get a choice of which wars you want to fight in. You could back mentally or physically crippled - or not come back at all.
Which is why political leaders must be trusted not to commit armed forces to some vainglorious and ultimately doomed foreign policy venture win-lose-or-draw.WWII - clear cut - resisting an invader
Suez -foreign policy clusterphuque
Falklands - clear cut - resisting an invader
First Iraq War - clear cut - resisting an invader
Second Iraq War - foreign policy clusterphuque
The Mad Monk said:
However, servicemen and women should FULLY understand the implications of what things mean when they sign up. They are all volunteers, they should accept that they may be sent to fight in an 'unjust' war. 'Unjust' in whose opinion? The Prime Minister of the day? Korea, Vietnam, Suez, Iraq, lots of people would say that all of those were wrong.
This is what happens when you volunteer to serve in the forces. You don't get a choice of which wars you want to fight in. You could back mentally or physically crippled - or not come back at all.
I agree, but when I went out to GW2, I don't think it was unreasonable to have expected the Government to have decided on its course of action, using legitimate means, not lies and obfuscations.This is what happens when you volunteer to serve in the forces. You don't get a choice of which wars you want to fight in. You could back mentally or physically crippled - or not come back at all.
I remember well the extra training on Chemical Warfare we had (scares the willies out of me, does chemical weapons...). I wasn't over impressed to find out it was all a lie!
FF
It's rather fashionable to loathe Tony Blair, particularly on Pistonheads!
However, it's worth reminding yourselves that Blair alone, did not take us to war with Iraq. He had the almost the entire Conservative party behind him.......
Furthermore, Cameron wanted to go to war with Syria and was only really prevented from doing so by Labour.
The likes of China and Russia sat up and took notice when the west showed it's unwillingness to take action in Syria. This has to my mind created an even more dangerous situation than the fall out of the Iraq war.
I personally cannot stand Blair or indeed Cameron, but they had/have to make some very difficult choices which are not as clear cut as many on here would like to believe. War is always horrible and I'm glad I'm never going to make those tough decisions.
However, it's worth reminding yourselves that Blair alone, did not take us to war with Iraq. He had the almost the entire Conservative party behind him.......
Furthermore, Cameron wanted to go to war with Syria and was only really prevented from doing so by Labour.
The likes of China and Russia sat up and took notice when the west showed it's unwillingness to take action in Syria. This has to my mind created an even more dangerous situation than the fall out of the Iraq war.
I personally cannot stand Blair or indeed Cameron, but they had/have to make some very difficult choices which are not as clear cut as many on here would like to believe. War is always horrible and I'm glad I'm never going to make those tough decisions.
yellowtang said:
It's rather fashionable to loathe Tony Blair, particularly on Pistonheads!
However, it's worth reminding yourselves that Blair alone, did not take us to war with Iraq. He had the almost the entire Conservative party behind him.......
Furthermore, Cameron wanted to go to war with Syria and was only really prevented from doing so by Labour.
The likes of China and Russia sat up and took notice when the west showed it's unwillingness to take action in Syria. This has to my mind created an even more dangerous situation than the fall out of the Iraq war.
I personally cannot stand Blair or indeed Cameron, but they had/have to make some very difficult choices which are not as clear cut as many on here would like to believe. War is always horrible and I'm glad I'm never going to make those tough decisions.
If you're right then he shouldn't have any reason to prevent Chilcott being published but still, 4 years since he was asked, he refuses to respond to the inquiry.However, it's worth reminding yourselves that Blair alone, did not take us to war with Iraq. He had the almost the entire Conservative party behind him.......
Furthermore, Cameron wanted to go to war with Syria and was only really prevented from doing so by Labour.
The likes of China and Russia sat up and took notice when the west showed it's unwillingness to take action in Syria. This has to my mind created an even more dangerous situation than the fall out of the Iraq war.
I personally cannot stand Blair or indeed Cameron, but they had/have to make some very difficult choices which are not as clear cut as many on here would like to believe. War is always horrible and I'm glad I'm never going to make those tough decisions.
Governments need people to do their dirty work.Any war can be justified you just have to find the enemy.The Middle East has always being about resources oil.Of course top politicans have to make difficult decisions and have to live with their conscious.Tony Blair is no better or worse than politicians from the past.
Foppo said:
Governments need people to do their dirty work.Any war can be justified you just have to find the enemy.The Middle East has always being about resources oil.Of course top politicans have to make difficult decisions and have to live with their conscious.Tony Blair is no better or worse than politicians from the past.
Define 'Government'Define 'Dirty Work'
Then provide a rational for 'Government' to do 'Dirty Work'
And once you are done with that...
Provide a rational for why a 'Government' should wish to do 'Dirty Work' to be carried out by 'people'
Then why 'people' would be motivated to conduct the 'Dirty Work' which a 'Government' may wish to execute.
Sheesh...
jjlynn27 said:
andy-xr said:
As a leader and politician he was absolutely brilliant, a bit too good for what was needed. Super slick, super composed, super friendly with those he needed to be friendly with, and when he saw what was coming, he handed it over for a clown to take the fall for the next couple of years before they got unelected. Epic good timing and grip on what he wanted to do, and fk the rest of them
His problem was that he wasnt doing all the right things, infact he was doing the wrong things, and that's OK when you've got support (remember the Support the Troops stuff in Iraq and all the shoulder to shoulder with the US) and if that works you can say confidently that you fked up, time to try a different path.
But spinning his way out of things that were as clear as day kind of showed him up towards the end, it went too slimy. I think he'd taken it as far as he could with what he could get away with under Labour and what they stood for, and I think if he'd still had the motivation and a bit more spend available he'd have called it the Tony Blair party and done whatever he wanted.
If I could write as eloquently as this, this would be a copy of my post. k the rest of them His problem was that he wasnt doing all the right things, infact he was doing the wrong things, and that's OK when you've got support (remember the Support the Troops stuff in Iraq and all the shoulder to shoulder with the US) and if that works you can say confidently that you f
ked up, time to try a different path. But spinning his way out of things that were as clear as day kind of showed him up towards the end, it went too slimy. I think he'd taken it as far as he could with what he could get away with under Labour and what they stood for, and I think if he'd still had the motivation and a bit more spend available he'd have called it the Tony Blair party and done whatever he wanted.
At he start, in the mid 90s, with the country as cool, and him with clinton in the usa, it was all very exciting. Then the ego arrived (both his and hers), Bush was elected and the whoe world bdcame a very dangerous place
williamp said:
jjlynn27 said:
andy-xr said:
As a leader and politician he was absolutely brilliant, a bit too good for what was needed. Super slick, super composed, super friendly with those he needed to be friendly with, and when he saw what was coming, he handed it over for a clown to take the fall for the next couple of years before they got unelected. Epic good timing and grip on what he wanted to do, and fk the rest of them
His problem was that he wasnt doing all the right things, infact he was doing the wrong things, and that's OK when you've got support (remember the Support the Troops stuff in Iraq and all the shoulder to shoulder with the US) and if that works you can say confidently that you fked up, time to try a different path.
But spinning his way out of things that were as clear as day kind of showed him up towards the end, it went too slimy. I think he'd taken it as far as he could with what he could get away with under Labour and what they stood for, and I think if he'd still had the motivation and a bit more spend available he'd have called it the Tony Blair party and done whatever he wanted.
If I could write as eloquently as this, this would be a copy of my post. k the rest of them His problem was that he wasnt doing all the right things, infact he was doing the wrong things, and that's OK when you've got support (remember the Support the Troops stuff in Iraq and all the shoulder to shoulder with the US) and if that works you can say confidently that you f
ked up, time to try a different path. But spinning his way out of things that were as clear as day kind of showed him up towards the end, it went too slimy. I think he'd taken it as far as he could with what he could get away with under Labour and what they stood for, and I think if he'd still had the motivation and a bit more spend available he'd have called it the Tony Blair party and done whatever he wanted.
At he start, in the mid 90s, with the country as cool, and him with clinton in the usa, it was all very exciting. Then the ego arrived (both his and hers), Bush was elected and the whoe world bdcame a very dangerous place
king hated him, the smarmy . But I cant take away how good he actually was at the whole being a politician thing. Deftly slick Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff