Blair, any questions

29 Jan 2010

Tony Blair is about to asked to answer questions about his war with Iraq. I have not dout he we attempt to evaded by answering questions he him self sets.
My question to him would be;
"Did you really think that sending British troop to die in an unnecessary war would make you more popular than Maggy Thatcher?"

29 Jan 2010

One of the questions I would ask him is...
Seeing as you sent us to war do you not have any moral guilt about accepting a " peace envoys " job in the Middle East?
I find it so hard to understand how somebody can send a country to war on very dubious grounds, and whilst that war is still ongoing, accept a job to bring about peace in the Middle East.
Surely his first purpose should have been about ending the war he started?
OH plus sooo many more, but that is the main one.

29 Jan 2010

I would ask him why he feels it's necessary to put a 70 year ban on the release of Dr David Kelly's post-mortem results if his suicide really was a genuine, solo effort.
Bliar will go down in history as a snake-oil salesman, and one with the blood of thousands on his hands.

29 Jan 2010

I would ask him up front, "Why did you do as President Bush told you to?"
Plim :sad:

29 Jan 2010

How does his religeon sit with all the lies he told the country and parlament?

29 Jan 2010

How do you feel, knowing that your behaviour has made Harold Wilson look like a great Prime Minister?

29 Jan 2010

I'd like to ask him if he had been planning to become the biggest war monger in the history of British Prime Ministers, when one of his first acts as leader was to abolish the old legislation that made high treason a hanging offence.
He has a lot of blood on his hands and his excuses are weak.

29 Jan 2010

I'd be interested to know how he got out of the QEII centre without being observed.. was it through the sewers?

29 Jan 2010

Quote by BrightonGeezer
I'd like to ask him if he had been planning to become the biggest war monger in the history of British Prime Ministers, when one of his first acts as leader was to abolish the old legislation that made high treason a hanging offence.
He has a lot of blood on his hands and his excuses are weak.

Biggest war monger? As compared to Salisbury, who waged the bloody Boer war and invented concentration camps? Or Churchill, whose rank stupidity saw many more casualties in Gallipoli and Norway than anything Blair has ever asked of the forces.
I know you've got a grudge, but history is more than what you can remember.

29 Jan 2010

Quote by awayman
I'd like to ask him if he had been planning to become the biggest war monger in the history of British Prime Ministers, when one of his first acts as leader was to abolish the old legislation that made high treason a hanging offence.
He has a lot of blood on his hands and his excuses are weak.

Biggest war monger? As compared to Salisbury, who waged the bloody Boer war and invented concentration camps? Or Churchill, whose rank stupidity saw many more casualties in Gallipoli and Norway than anything Blair has ever asked of the forces.
I know you've got a grudge, but history is more than what you can remember.
Don't know anything about Salisbury...
But Churchill, making a mistake during WWII and Blair declaring war on a country for regime change are a world appart

29 Jan 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
I'd like to ask him if he had been planning to become the biggest war monger in the history of British Prime Ministers, when one of his first acts as leader was to abolish the old legislation that made high treason a hanging offence.
He has a lot of blood on his hands and his excuses are weak.

Biggest war monger? As compared to Salisbury, who waged the bloody Boer war and invented concentration camps? Or Churchill, whose rank stupidity saw many more casualties in Gallipoli and Norway than anything Blair has ever asked of the forces.
I know you've got a grudge, but history is more than what you can remember.
Don't know anything about Salisbury...
But Churchill, making a mistake during WWII and Blair declaring war on a country for regime change are a world appart
Gallipoli wasn't a mistake then? It slaughtered more men than Blair is to blame for. Churchill of course went looking for wars wherever he could find them, partly so he could make money writing about them and doing speaking tours - but you're not allowed to criticize him apparently...

29 Jan 2010

Quote by awayman
I'd like to ask him if he had been planning to become the biggest war monger in the history of British Prime Ministers, when one of his first acts as leader was to abolish the old legislation that made high treason a hanging offence.
He has a lot of blood on his hands and his excuses are weak.

Biggest war monger? As compared to Salisbury, who waged the bloody Boer war and invented concentration camps? Or Churchill, whose rank stupidity saw many more casualties in Gallipoli and Norway than anything Blair has ever asked of the forces.
I know you've got a grudge, but history is more than what you can remember.
Don't know anything about Salisbury...
But Churchill, making a mistake during WWII and Blair declaring war on a country for regime change are a world appart
Gallipoli wasn't a mistake then? It slaughtered more men than Blair is to blame for. Churchill of course went looking for wars wherever he could find them, partly so he could make money writing about them and doing speaking tours - but you're not allowed to criticize him apparently...
God forbid you should criticize saint Winston he single handedly saved the world from Hitler don't you know

29 Jan 2010

Quote by awayman
I'd like to ask him if he had been planning to become the biggest war monger in the history of British Prime Ministers, when one of his first acts as leader was to abolish the old legislation that made high treason a hanging offence.
He has a lot of blood on his hands and his excuses are weak.

Biggest war monger? As compared to Salisbury, who waged the bloody Boer war and invented concentration camps? Or Churchill, whose rank stupidity saw many more casualties in Gallipoli and Norway than anything Blair has ever asked of the forces.
I know you've got a grudge, but history is more than what you can remember.
Don't know anything about Salisbury...
But Churchill, making a mistake during WWI and Blair declaring war on a country for regime change are a world appart
Gallipoli wasn't a mistake then? It slaughtered more men than Blair is to blame for. Churchill of course went looking for wars wherever he could find them, partly so he could make money writing about them and doing speaking tours - but you're not allowed to criticize him apparently...
Why are all your post,s so aggressive? I did not say he was beyond criticism. I think there is a huge difference between the two, and even if I am wrong in my opinions, that does nothing in my mind to lesson Blair massive mistakes

29 Jan 2010

Churchill was the greatest PM of our time.
In the second world war he was a man for the times...fact.

Many more as well.
Never compare anyone else with this great man and remember....he was the only PM ever to be given a state funeral....I won't tell you the reason for that as well.....you probably would not understand.
The second link was done by the British people.

30 Jan 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
compare anyone else with this great man

Saddam and Churchill both gassed the Kurds, that is a comparison
Dave_Notts

30 Jan 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
compare anyone else with this great man

Saddam and Churchill both gassed the Kurds, that is a comparison
Dave_Notts
I will direct you once again to this...

Says it all really.
Without Churchill we no doubt would have the lost war...we would be under some dictatorship telling us what we can do ( a bit like this Government really ), and we would not have the cosy liberal Britain we have today.
Which thinking about it sounds not so bad a proposition.

30 Jan 2010

I can not see how others misdemeaners make blairs any less, red herring

30 Jan 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Churchill was the greatest PM of our time.
In the second world war he was a man for the times...fact.

Many more as well.
Never compare anyone else with this great man and remember....he was the only PM ever to be given a state funeral....I won't tell you the reason for that as well.....you probably would not understand.
The second link was done by the British people.

Are you really saying all the British people made that link? I didn't.
I think Churchill was wonderful. Proof that incompetence, alcoholism and manic depression are no obstacles to holding office. Providing you're born into the right family that is.
Luckily he had a skilled and well loved army officer and genuine hero as his deputy during the war; when the British public got a choice between the two of them (three times over) Attlee always secured more votes.
Funny then, that Churchill is supposedly so well loved. There again, while Churchill sent people to die at Suvla Bay, Clem Attlee was the last but one soldier to be evacuated off the beach at Suvla Bay. Plenty of people who gave him a landslide in 1945 and booted Churchill out of office remembered that sort o stuff.
Churchill was lucky. He was around long enough for his errors to be forgotten and for others achievements to be attributed to him. But he's a far more complex, and far less clear cut historical figure than the hagiographies would have you believe.

30 Jan 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
I'd like to ask him if he had been planning to become the biggest war monger in the history of British Prime Ministers, when one of his first acts as leader was to abolish the old legislation that made high treason a hanging offence.
He has a lot of blood on his hands and his excuses are weak.

Biggest war monger? As compared to Salisbury, who waged the bloody Boer war and invented concentration camps? Or Churchill, whose rank stupidity saw many more casualties in Gallipoli and Norway than anything Blair has ever asked of the forces.
I know you've got a grudge, but history is more than what you can remember.
Don't know anything about Salisbury...
But Churchill, making a mistake during WWI and Blair declaring war on a country for regime change are a world appart
Gallipoli wasn't a mistake then? It slaughtered more men than Blair is to blame for. Churchill of course went looking for wars wherever he could find them, partly so he could make money writing about them and doing speaking tours - but you're not allowed to criticize him apparently...
Why are all your post,s so aggressive? I did not say he was beyond criticism. I think there is a huge difference between the two, and even if I am wrong in my opinions, that does nothing in my mind to lesson Blair massive mistakes
Why is it aggressive to point out that there are other opinions to yours? Is that how it works here?

30 Jan 2010

Quote by awayman
I'd like to ask him if he had been planning to become the biggest war monger in the history of British Prime Ministers, when one of his first acts as leader was to abolish the old legislation that made high treason a hanging offence.
He has a lot of blood on his hands and his excuses are weak.

Biggest war monger? As compared to Salisbury, who waged the bloody Boer war and invented concentration camps? Or Churchill, whose rank stupidity saw many more casualties in Gallipoli and Norway than anything Blair has ever asked of the forces.
I know you've got a grudge, but history is more than what you can remember.
Don't know anything about Salisbury...
But Churchill, making a mistake during WWI and Blair declaring war on a country for regime change are a world appart
Gallipoli wasn't a mistake then? It slaughtered more men than Blair is to blame for. Churchill of course went looking for wars wherever he could find them, partly so he could make money writing about them and doing speaking tours - but you're not allowed to criticize him apparently...
Why are all your post,s so aggressive? I did not say he was beyond criticism. I think there is a huge difference between the two, and even if I am wrong in my opinions, that does nothing in my mind to lesson Blair massive mistakes
Why is it aggressive to point out that there are other opinions to yours? Is that how it works here?
I rest my case
Its not what you say, its the way you say it, you talk down to people.

30 Jan 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
I'd like to ask him if he had been planning to become the biggest war monger in the history of British Prime Ministers, when one of his first acts as leader was to abolish the old legislation that made high treason a hanging offence.
He has a lot of blood on his hands and his excuses are weak.

Biggest war monger? As compared to Salisbury, who waged the bloody Boer war and invented concentration camps? Or Churchill, whose rank stupidity saw many more casualties in Gallipoli and Norway than anything Blair has ever asked of the forces.
I know you've got a grudge, but history is more than what you can remember.
Don't know anything about Salisbury...
But Churchill, making a mistake during WWI and Blair declaring war on a country for regime change are a world appart
Gallipoli wasn't a mistake then? It slaughtered more men than Blair is to blame for. Churchill of course went looking for wars wherever he could find them, partly so he could make money writing about them and doing speaking tours - but you're not allowed to criticize him apparently...
Why are all your post,s so aggressive? I did not say he was beyond criticism. I think there is a huge difference between the two, and even if I am wrong in my opinions, that does nothing in my mind to lesson Blair massive mistakes
Why is it aggressive to point out that there are other opinions to yours? Is that how it works here?
I rest my case
Its not what you say, its the way you say it, you talk down to people.
Again, I don't get it. I asked if there was, implicitly, some kind of rule that you can't challenge the opinion of the claque round here. In return, you accuse me of being aggressive and talking down to people. I am genuinely baffled.

30 Jan 2010

Quote by awayman
Churchill was the greatest PM of our time.
In the second world war he was a man for the times...fact.

Many more as well.
Never compare anyone else with this great man and remember....he was the only PM ever to be given a state funeral....I won't tell you the reason for that as well.....you probably would not understand.
The second link was done by the British people.

Are you really saying all the British people made that link? I didn't.
I think Churchill was wonderful. Proof that incompetence, alcoholism and manic depression are no obstacles to holding office. Providing you're born into the right family that is.
Luckily he had a skilled and well loved army officer and genuine hero as his deputy during the war; when the British public got a choice between the two of them (three times over) Attlee always secured more votes.
Funny then, that Churchill is supposedly so well loved. There again, while Churchill sent people to die at Suvla Bay, Clem Attlee was the last but one soldier to be evacuated off the beach at Suvla Bay. Plenty of people who gave him a landslide in 1945 and booted Churchill out of office remembered that sort o stuff.
Churchill was lucky. He was around long enough for his errors to be forgotten and for others achievements to be attributed to him. But he's a far more complex, and far less clear cut historical figure than the hagiographies would have you believe.
And what were those same peoples reasons for re-electing him?????
You may not have voted for him in that poll. but there have been many polls, and funnily enough he always comes out on top.
Nobody in high office is beyond reproach, and whilst he made mistakes along the way, people like you and me were not around in those years, so base our opinions on bollox.
My Fathers generation during the war years would say something different.
He was a man for those times and yes he lost the PM role after the war, but they re-elected him at the first opportunity, as they realised he was the best PM at that time.

30 Jan 2010

Quote by awayman
I'd like to ask him if he had been planning to become the biggest war monger in the history of British Prime Ministers, when one of his first acts as leader was to abolish the old legislation that made high treason a hanging offence.
He has a lot of blood on his hands and his excuses are weak.

Biggest war monger? As compared to Salisbury, who waged the bloody Boer war and invented concentration camps? Or Churchill, whose rank stupidity saw many more casualties in Gallipoli and Norway than anything Blair has ever asked of the forces.
I know you've got a grudge, but history is more than what you can remember.
Don't know anything about Salisbury...
But Churchill, making a mistake during WWI and Blair declaring war on a country for regime change are a world appart
Gallipoli wasn't a mistake then? It slaughtered more men than Blair is to blame for. Churchill of course went looking for wars wherever he could find them, partly so he could make money writing about them and doing speaking tours - but you're not allowed to criticize him apparently...
Why are all your post,s so aggressive? I did not say he was beyond criticism. I think there is a huge difference between the two, and even if I am wrong in my opinions, that does nothing in my mind to lesson Blair massive mistakes
Why is it aggressive to point out that there are other opinions to yours? Is that how it works here?
I rest my case
Its not what you say, its the way you say it, you talk down to people.
Again, I don't get it. I asked if there was, implicitly, some kind of rule that you can't challenge the opinion of the claque round here. In return, you accuse me of being aggressive and talking down to people. I am genuinely baffled.
Ok It must be me then
To be clear though
I have not been here long enough to be part of any claque, in fact my opinion is different to most of the regulars here.

30 Jan 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Churchill was the greatest PM of our time.
In the second world war he was a man for the times...fact.

Many more as well.
Never compare anyone else with this great man and remember....he was the only PM ever to be given a state funeral....I won't tell you the reason for that as well.....you probably would not understand.
The second link was done by the British people.

Are you really saying all the British people made that link? I didn't.
I think Churchill was wonderful. Proof that incompetence, alcoholism and manic depression are no obstacles to holding office. Providing you're born into the right family that is.
Luckily he had a skilled and well loved army officer and genuine hero as his deputy during the war; when the British public got a choice between the two of them (three times over) Attlee always secured more votes.
Funny then, that Churchill is supposedly so well loved. There again, while Churchill sent people to die at Suvla Bay, Clem Attlee was the last but one soldier to be evacuated off the beach at Suvla Bay. Plenty of people who gave him a landslide in 1945 and booted Churchill out of office remembered that sort o stuff.
Churchill was lucky. He was around long enough for his errors to be forgotten and for others achievements to be attributed to him. But he's a far more complex, and far less clear cut historical figure than the hagiographies would have you believe.
And what were those same peoples reasons for re-electing him?????
You may not have voted for him in that poll. but there have been many polls, and funnily enough he always comes out on top.
Nobody in high office is beyond reproach, and whilst he made mistakes along the way, people like you and me were not around in those years, so base our opinions on bollox.
My Fathers generation during the war years would say something different.
He was a man for those times and yes he lost the PM role after the war, but they re-elected him at the first opportunity, as they realised he was the best PM at that time.
Let's leave the nonsense aside and deal with the facts. The British people did not re-elect Churchill at the first opportunity. He lost the 1950 general election, and lost the popular vote in 1951 (although he won the election because of the quirks of the electoral system).
I don't base my opinions on bollox. I find history much more useful.

30 Jan 2010

" although he won the election because of the quirks of the electoral system " .
In other words....he was re-elected!

30 Jan 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
compare anyone else with this great man

Saddam and Churchill both gassed the Kurds, that is a comparison
Dave_Notts
I will direct you once again to this...

Says it all really.
Without Churchill we no doubt would have the lost war...we would be under some dictatorship telling us what we can do ( a bit like this Government really ), and we would not have the cosy liberal Britain we have today.
Which thinking about it sounds not so bad a proposition.
Thanks for showing me it again.............and so what........1/60th of the population voted on it. More vote on x-factor.
You and others believe he was the greatest Briton........I just compare him to Saddam as he done the exact same thing. One was hanged and the other put on a pedestal. Go figure. I just can't work it out.
As for Blair.....just done the same as any other leader has done in the past......when it comes to war it will be damned if you do (i.e. Blair) and damned if you don't (Chamberlain). Not a job I could do.
Dave_Notts

31 Jan 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
compare anyone else with this great man

Saddam and Churchill both gassed the Kurds, that is a comparison
Dave_Notts
I will direct you once again to this...

Says it all really.
Without Churchill we no doubt would have the lost war...we would be under some dictatorship telling us what we can do ( a bit like this Government really ), and we would not have the cosy liberal Britain we have today.
Which thinking about it sounds not so bad a proposition.
Thanks for showing me it again.............and so what........1/60th of the population voted on it. More vote on x-factor.
You and others believe he was the greatest Briton........I just compare him to Saddam as he done the exact same thing. One was hanged and the other put on a pedestal. Go figure. I just can't work it out.
As for Blair.....just done the same as any other leader has done in the past......when it comes to war it will be damned if you do (i.e. Blair) and damned if you don't (Chamberlain). Not a job I could do.
Dave_Notts
Not suprised to be honest Davey. wink

31 Jan 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
compare anyone else with this great man

Saddam and Churchill both gassed the Kurds, that is a comparison
Dave_Notts
I will direct you once again to this...

Says it all really.
Without Churchill we no doubt would have the lost war...we would be under some dictatorship telling us what we can do ( a bit like this Government really ), and we would not have the cosy liberal Britain we have today.
Which thinking about it sounds not so bad a proposition.
Thanks for showing me it again.............and so what........1/60th of the population voted on it. More vote on x-factor.
You and others believe he was the greatest Briton........I just compare him to Saddam as he done the exact same thing. One was hanged and the other put on a pedestal. Go figure. I just can't work it out.
As for Blair.....just done the same as any other leader has done in the past......when it comes to war it will be damned if you do (i.e. Blair) and damned if you don't (Chamberlain). Not a job I could do.
Dave_Notts
Not suprised to be honest Davey. wink

I guess so...............others may see something good in mass murder, where I don't. Thats why I'll never work it out
Dave_Notts

31 Jan 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
" although he won the election because of the quirks of the electoral system " .
In other words....he was re-elected!

Keep clinging onto that simple mis-statement. He lost twice, didn't win the popular vote the third time, but got in anyway. As an assertion of his popularity it's hardly convincing.

31 Jan 2010

Quote by awayman
" although he won the election because of the quirks of the electoral system " .
In other words....he was re-elected!

Keep clinging onto that simple mis-statement. He lost twice, didn't win the popular vote the third time, but got in anyway. As an assertion of his popularity it's hardly convincing.
So what does winning 35% of the popular vote, equating to 22% of the electorate say about Tony Blair's popularity in the 2005 election? What relevancy does the popular vote have anyway, seeing as how 65% of the voting electorate voted against Labour at the last election, yet a Labour Government was returned? dunno