Tony Blair's blood money

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Blue the monarchy may well be technically a minority as may the rich.....but they are far from oppressed.....they 'rule you/us, there are many things that I don't rise to ....naivety, especially wilful deliberate faux naivety isn't one of them.

I never said they were oppressed and a rise is not what I am after either, I just do not see how it is wrong to vilify some section's of our community but fine if they have money, they are people just the same.
I see double standards often around here, and that is aimed at whomever the cap shall fit
It is (and I had thought I made myself clear on this)not the person but the position.....I don't care who wears the crown...I firmly believe the best response is to swing an axe under it

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
The problem with your argument old boy is that I can only think of one person who I would say I hate (care to guess??)

Well as an assumption could it ermmmm....be me? Of course I can only give a proper answer to that one if you actually come out and say it, instead of hiding behind words.

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
and again we have the implication that I 'have very little'
you make assumptions

Was I actually talking about you? I think you are suffering from a tad of paranoia. Seems I have struck a big nerve there, as you always get very defensive when I mention that one, even though it is usually an assumption from ones good self.

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I have I strongly suspect not a great deal less than you....perhaps I am just more at peace with it.....Here's a secret don't tell anyone I told you ....money means fuck al

I think money means a bit more than fuck all Staggs. Your assumption that you have not a great deal less than me could well be true, we will never know as one thing I am sure of....we will never ever meet to find out.
Happy holidays.

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Blue the monarchy may well be technically a minority as may the rich.....but they are far from oppressed.....they 'rule you/us, there are many things that I don't rise to ....naivety, especially wilful deliberate faux naivety isn't one of them.

I never said they were oppressed and a rise is not what I am after either, I just do not see how it is wrong to vilify some section's of our community but fine if they have money, they are people just the same.
I see double standards often around here, and that is aimed at whomever the cap shall fit
It is (and I had thought I made myself clear on this)not the person but the position.....I don't care who wears the crown...I firmly believe the best response is to swing an axe under it
You are making an argument that allows you to vent hatred at a section of our community

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
You are making an argument that allows you to vent hatred at a section of our community

Where is Benny when ya need him?
Blimey if it had been me making that comment, he would have had his jowels shaking in their Dr. Martins. lol

18 Aug 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
You are making an argument that allows you to vent hatred at a section of our community

Where is Benny when ya need him?
Blimey if it had been me making that comment, he would have had his jowels shaking in their Dr. Martins. lol

:laughabove:

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
What is there to object to about this?

Maybe that question would be better answered by the parents who have lost their Sons, and to the loved ones who have to pick up the pieces of having their child come home with no limbs, because a certain man sent them to a pointless war.
So he sends them to war and then some come home minus limbs, and then his money goes towards something they could well use for their disability that he is ultimately responsible for.
I really cannot understand why people would see anything wrong in that at all. loon

18 Aug 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
What is there to object to about this?

Maybe that question would be better answered by the parents who have lost their Sons, and to the loved ones who have to pick up the pieces of having their child come home with no limbs, because a certain man sent them to a pointless war.
So he sends them to war and then some come home minus limbs, and then his money goes towards something they could well use for their disability that he is ultimately responsible for.
I really cannot understand why people would see anything wrong in that at all. loon

Could have been said about Churchill after Gallipoli but people put him on a pedestal.
Now a pointless war is debateable........certain sections of the Iraqi regime would differ to you. Without this overthrow then their lives would be more miserable or forfeit. Countries in the region believe it is more stable.......and some think the opposite.
War always has winners and losers. Wars always have casualties. To cherry pick the "decent" wars and claim they are better or more worthy than others is wrong in my view.
Dave_Notts

18 Aug 2010

I am not privy to all the figures Davey in as much as deaths of civilians in Iraq since the end of the war, but I have seen reports of well over
Yes it is true Saddam is no longer in power and it is also true that most Iraqis have a freedom they could only have dreamed of but....there are bombs going off almost daily killing hundreds of innocent people, and if the figures are right then that is a heck of a lot of dead people that may well have still been alive under the Saddam regime.
Not all rosy there as British and American politicians would have us all believe otherwise.
The Sunni and the Shi'ite muslims are killing each other on a daily basis, and I do not think that was happening under the Saddam rule?

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
What is there to object to about this?

Maybe that question would be better answered by the parents who have lost their Sons, and to the loved ones who have to pick up the pieces of having their child come home with no limbs, because a certain man sent them to a pointless war.
So he sends them to war and then some come home minus limbs, and then his money goes towards something they could well use for their disability that he is ultimately responsible for.
I really cannot understand why people would see anything wrong in that at all. loon

Could have been said about Churchill after Gallipoli but people put him on a pedestal.
Now a pointless war is debateable........certain sections of the Iraqi regime would differ to you. Without this overthrow then their lives would be more miserable or forfeit. Countries in the region believe it is more stable.......and some think the opposite.
War always has winners and losers. Wars always have casualties. To cherry pick the "decent" wars and claim they are better or more worthy than others is wrong in my view.
Dave_Notts
I do not think any comparison can be drawn between the two, vastly different situations

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
What is there to object to about this?

Maybe that question would be better answered by the parents who have lost their Sons, and to the loved ones who have to pick up the pieces of having their child come home with no limbs, because a certain man sent them to a pointless war.
So he sends them to war and then some come home minus limbs, and then his money goes towards something they could well use for their disability that he is ultimately responsible for.
I really cannot understand why people would see anything wrong in that at all. loon

Could have been said about Churchill after Gallipoli but people put him on a pedestal.
Now a pointless war is debateable........certain sections of the Iraqi regime would differ to you. Without this overthrow then their lives would be more miserable or forfeit. Countries in the region believe it is more stable.......and some think the opposite.
War always has winners and losers. Wars always have casualties. To cherry pick the "decent" wars and claim they are better or more worthy than others is wrong in my view.
Dave_Notts
I do not think any comparison can be drawn between the two, vastly different situations
Depends who you are talking to I suppose Blue.
Some people would say you can because all wars are evil, however it is dressed up. Other try to justify a war by saying it is worth it.........but to who?
I can make a comparison as I believe that what they both done was done without thinking about the outcomes and one left hundreds of thousands dead or maimed and one left thousands dead and maimed. If we are only talking about numbers then Churchills cock up was a lot worse.
Dave_Notts

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Could have been said about Churchill after Gallipoli but people put him on a pedestal.

There is confusion as to what was decided at this meeting of the War Council. Churchill believed that he had been given the go-ahead; Asquith believed that what was decided was merely “provisional to prepare, but nothing more.” A naval member of the Council, Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson, stated:
“It was not my business. I was not in any way connected with the question, and it had never in any way officially been put before me." Churchill’s secretary considered that the members of the Navy who were present “only agreed to a purely naval operation on the understanding that we could always draw back – that there should be no question of what is known as forcing the Dardanelles.”
With such apprehension and seeming confusion as to what the War Office did believe, Churchill’s plan was pushed through. It would appear that there was a belief that the Turks would be an easy target and that minimal force would be needed for success. Carden was given the go ahead to prepare an assault.
Seems a bit of a cock up all round then really.
He is put on a " pedestal " by who exactly?
I think we have been down this road of his leadership skills during WW2, that is without question one of the greatest acts in British history, and still the ONLY ever PM given a state funeral.
Next you will be telling me that they were wrong, and you are right.

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
What is there to object to about this?

Maybe that question would be better answered by the parents who have lost their Sons, and to the loved ones who have to pick up the pieces of having their child come home with no limbs, because a certain man sent them to a pointless war.
So he sends them to war and then some come home minus limbs, and then his money goes towards something they could well use for their disability that he is ultimately responsible for.
I really cannot understand why people would see anything wrong in that at all. loon

Could have been said about Churchill after Gallipoli but people put him on a pedestal.
Now a pointless war is debateable........certain sections of the Iraqi regime would differ to you. Without this overthrow then their lives would be more miserable or forfeit. Countries in the region believe it is more stable.......and some think the opposite.
War always has winners and losers. Wars always have casualties. To cherry pick the "decent" wars and claim they are better or more worthy than others is wrong in my view.
Dave_Notts
I do not think any comparison can be drawn between the two, vastly different situations
Depends who you are talking to I suppose Blue.
Some people would say you can because all wars are evil, however it is dressed up. Other try to justify a war by saying it is worth it.........but to who?
I can make a comparison as I believe that what they both done was done without thinking about the outcomes and one left hundreds of thousands dead or maimed and one left thousands dead and maimed. If we are only talking about numbers then Churchill's cock up was a lot worse.
Dave_Notts
I have to differ, as I have said here before,
My view is, that had the navy listened to Churchill and continued to force the Dardanelles as he wished, things would have been very different indeed. There are many commentators and historians who believe this would have paid dividends, As the Turks were low on heavy shells and moral had hit rock bottom, and ready to give up in fact.
Therefore was its Churchill's mistake that really lead to those deaths? It is all open to interpretation.

18 Aug 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
The problem with your argument old boy is that I can only think of one person who I would say I hate (care to guess??)

Well as an assumption could it ermmmm....be me? Of course I can only give a proper answer to that one if you actually come out and say it, instead of hiding behind words.
No Ken I don't hate you ....I hate your idol Maggie....Paranoia ???see below

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
and again we have the implication that I 'have very little'
you make assumptions

Was I actually talking about you? I think you are suffering from a tad of paranoia. Seems I have struck a big nerve there, as you always get very defensive when I mention that one, even though it is usually an assumption from ones good self.
It's about context Ken your comments usually follow one of my posts....You struck no nerve I just don't like to see you building your arguements on sand....you are mistaken about my position.....but nowhere near as mistaken as you are about others...it's quite funny really

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
I have I strongly suspect not a great deal less than you....perhaps I am just more at peace with it.....Here's a secret don't tell anyone I told you ....money means fuck al

I think money means a bit more than fuck all Staggs. Your assumption that you have not a great deal less than me could well be true, we will never know as one thing I am sure of....we will never ever meet to find out.
Money has one use .....to give to others ...it serves no purpose whatsoever if you're not handing it over....so as I said money means fuck all....I'm right.....it's an absolute tragedy that you can't see this....and quite funny really
Happy holidays.

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
i cant understand why giving money to a hospital for people injured fighting for their country is wrong.

Its not
But that does not mean we cant suspect his motives for doing so
Guilt?
Insurance policy with God?
Not sure, but any one with true motives would not have courted the publisity he has, It would have been done behind closed doors

18 Aug 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Could have been said about Churchill after Gallipoli but people put him on a pedestal.

There is confusion as to what was decided at this meeting of the War Council. Churchill believed that he had been given the go-ahead; Asquith believed that what was decided was merely “provisional to prepare, but nothing more.” A naval member of the Council, Admiral Sir Arthur Wilson, stated:
“It was not my business. I was not in any way connected with the question, and it had never in any way officially been put before me." Churchill’s secretary considered that the members of the Navy who were present “only agreed to a purely naval operation on the understanding that we could always draw back – that there should be no question of what is known as forcing the Dardanelles.”
With such apprehension and seeming confusion as to what the War Office did believe, Churchill’s plan was pushed through. It would appear that there was a belief that the Turks would be an easy target and that minimal force would be needed for success. Carden was given the go ahead to prepare an assault.
Seems a bit of a cock up all round then really.
He is put on a " pedestal " by who exactly?
I think we have been down this road of his leadership skills during WW2, that is without question one of the greatest acts in British history, and still the ONLY ever PM given a state funeral.
Next you will be telling me that they were wrong, and you are right.
So hundreds of thousands were not killed and maimed.......I must be wrong then rolleyes

The cemetaries must be filled with hoax bodies
In edit: Why did we go to war in September 1939? Who did Churchill sell down the swanny in 1945? Poor Poland swapped Hitler for Stalin.......true compasion for the Poles and what a waste of British lives if he gave away what we went to war for.
Dave_Notts

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
I have to differ, as I have said here before,
My view is, that had the navy listened to Churchill and continued to force the Dardanelles as he wished, things would have been very different indeed. There are many commentators and historians who believe this would have paid dividends, As the Turks were low on heavy shells and moral had hit rock bottom, and ready to give up in fact.
Therefore was its Churchill's mistake that really lead to those deaths? It is all open to interpretation.

It depends whose history you read Blue. Half the heavy ships had been sunk or crippled on the first try. The Turks may have been out of heavy shells but they had successfully mined the lanes and escape routes.
The Turks could lob shells but the ships could only fire on a flat trajectory. The Brit shells were going over the prepared positions.
As for the moral......ours was higher before the battle, but the Turks moral soon raised when they realised that their prepared positions were strong.
IMO the rest of the fleet would have been sunk if they tried to keep forcing the Dardanelles........but since it was never tried again then nobody can be sure
Dave_Notts

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
i cant understand why giving money to a hospital for people injured fighting for their country is wrong.

Its not
But that does not mean we cant suspect his motives for doing so
Guilt?
Insurance policy with God?
Not sure, but any one with true motives would not have courted the publisity he has, It would have been done behind closed doors
i agree ,the best charity is done in private,but that is very he actually believes he has done the wrong thing,and is trying to find forgivnes should we not be adults and offer it?
I agree with both of you here.........if that makes sense :silly:
Dave_Notts

18 Aug 2010

I agree with kaz n blue n dave.
Erm I dont get angry when I rea dor most on forums yaknow. Just in case anybody was wondering.

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Ben_welshminx
I agree with kaz n blue n dave.
Erm I dont get angry when I rea dor most on forums yaknow. Just in case anybody was wondering.

You forgot Staggs. :twisted:

18 Aug 2010

lol
That was a very good attempt at humour.
Where it falls down as humour is accuracy.
It includes Blue who although he debates rationally and without rancour and is an individual I hold in high regard can hardly be accused of sharing my political views.
It assumes that I always agree with the same people, which I rarely do. In fact when Dave or Kaz challenge some of the sillier notions I don't bother to comment as I wouldn't wish the wider readership to believe the allegations of bullying.
If you need any further humour guidance please feel free to PM me.

18 Aug 2010

Quote by Ben_welshminx
If you need any further humour guidance please feel free to PM me.

You are'aving a laugh....yes?
It's the jowels I tell ya. lol

:lol:
Anyway I would have thought I was blocked from sending you a pm....you are. wink

18 Aug 2010

How could I be blocked from sending myself a PM?

18 Aug 2010

It is such hard work at times and I know it is a little late but....Oh I really cannot be bothered to explain.

19 Aug 2010

Quote by Ben_welshminx
How could I be blocked from sending myself a PM?

Why would you want to block yourself from sending yourself a pm dunno

19 Aug 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts

I have to differ, as I have said here before,
My view is, that had the navy listened to Churchill and continued to force the Dardanelles as he wished, things would have been very different indeed. There are many commentators and historians who believe this would have paid dividends, As the Turks were low on heavy shells and moral had hit rock bottom, and ready to give up in fact.
Therefore was its Churchill's mistake that really lead to those deaths? It is all open to interpretation.

It depends whose history you read Blue. Half the heavy ships had been sunk or crippled on the first try. The Turks may have been out of heavy shells but they had successfully mined the lanes and escape routes.
The Turks could lob shells but the ships could only fire on a flat trajectory. The Brit shells were going over the prepared positions.
As for the moral......ours was higher before the battle, but the Turks moral soon raised when they realised that their prepared positions were strong.
IMO the rest of the fleet would have been sunk if they tried to keep forcing the Dardanelles........but since it was never tried again then nobody can be sure
Dave_Notts
We will have to agree to differ then wink

19 Aug 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
i cant understand why giving money to a hospital for people injured fighting for their country is wrong.

Its not
But that does not mean we cant suspect his motives for doing so
Guilt?
Insurance policy with God?
Not sure, but any one with true motives would not have courted the publisity he has, It would have been done behind closed doors
i agree ,the best charity is done in private,but that is very he actually believes he has done the wrong thing,and is trying to find forgivnes should we not be adults and offer it?
Yes I guess we should, but I find it difficult to give, and I have not lost anyone

19 Aug 2010

Quote by GnV
Did I not read that he is only donating the profits to the RBL.
Call me a cynic, but profits are somewhat different to proceeds....
The grinning lying cheating toe rag is off on another one by all accounts. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him (if he were reachable that is!).
Guilty conscience? too fucking right but only to a certain extent :grin:

he can't donate the proceeds - he's not the publisher or the retailer. All he can donate is his advance, and any further payments under the contract. Which he has done.
I don't remember Thatcher donating anything from her books to Falklands veterans.

19 Aug 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
Name me one instance in recent history where Buck House has gone against his/her Government?
Blair had a huge majority in Parliament and like in many other cases his MP's would have been forced to vote for the Government.
So yes he did have the final say.
I may be wrong but I think Labour would have won even if all other MP's would have voted against the Government.
He could have railroaded his way into war but did not need to as he had the support of the vast majority of MP's.

1975.
Dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister by the governor general.

19 Aug 2010

Quote by awayman
Name me one instance in recent history where Buck House has gone against his/her Government?
Blair had a huge majority in Parliament and like in many other cases his MP's would have been forced to vote for the Government.
So yes he did have the final say.
I may be wrong but I think Labour would have won even if all other MP's would have voted against the Government.
He could have railroaded his way into war but did not need to as he had the support of the vast majority of MP's.

1975.
Dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister by the governor general.
Thank God for Google eh?

19 Aug 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
I am not privy to all the figures Davey in as much as deaths of civilians in Iraq since the end of the war, but I have seen reports of well over
Yes it is true Saddam is no longer in power and it is also true that most Iraqis have a freedom they could only have dreamed of but....there are bombs going off almost daily killing hundreds of innocent people, and if the figures are right then that is a heck of a lot of dead people that may well have still been alive under the Saddam regime.
Not all rosy there as British and American politicians would have us all believe otherwise.
The Sunni and the Shi'ite muslims are killing each other on a daily basis, and I do not think that was happening under the Saddam rule?

One day someone will explain to me why people who care so passionately about the number of deaths in Iraq post regime change don't appear to have given a flying fuck about the number of deaths in Iraq pre-regime change.
Is it because they couldn't use those deaths to make cheap political points?