D
david and julie
kendor said:
Yours or theirs?
Yours or theirs?
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Is this the difference between Tone and Maggot ?
He tends to 'plead' his case, She, on the other hand, declared her intent, as one would expect from a strong (not necessarily righteous) leader...
I feel for old Hans Blix, he was managing well really .. Perhaps he fell prey to reporting just a tad 'over the top' with regard to Saddos capabilities ... The plain truth may have taken the edge off the UN's drive to disable Saddam.... it may also have dissuaded Bush and son ( ) from subsequent action.
Tone has a c hi nk in his armour .. the belief that he 'knows better' - one man show syndrome -- But not quite the strong, tough, leader.
He tends to 'plead' his case, She, on the other hand, declared her intent, as one would expect from a strong (not necessarily righteous) leader...
I feel for old Hans Blix, he was managing well really .. Perhaps he fell prey to reporting just a tad 'over the top' with regard to Saddos capabilities ... The plain truth may have taken the edge off the UN's drive to disable Saddam.... it may also have dissuaded Bush and son (
) from subsequent action.Tone has a c hi nk in his armour .. the belief that he 'knows better' - one man show syndrome -- But not quite the strong, tough, leader.
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2004
- Messages
- 1,069
- Reaction score
- 71
- Country
Excellent....I have just p*ss*ed my pants laughing at that.
D
david and julie
Great stuff! how on earth do they think of them?
I noticed someone in the cabinet being interviewed who said that they went ahead with the war because of Hans Blix report that sadam was not doing what he was supposed to do under the ceasfire agreement. Except what I remember Blix saying was that sadam was in fact cooperating more than he ever had, and what they really needed was more time to make him cooperate completely. Blix officially said things were improving, unofficially he has said he had found no evidence of wmd and was not expecting to. Kind of what the French said. I think there were even cases which the Americans were citing as reasons for war which were demonstrated to be incorrect somewhere in the fine print of his (very long) official report.
The attourney general said it would be legal to invade either if the Un said yes, or if sadam indeed did have wmd which threatened Britain. He was also arguing that any country could unilaterally decide that sadam had broken his ceasfire agreement and hence anyone could invade him. A very dodgy argument invented by the Americans which we used to disagree with. Next someone will say that China is entitled to invade Japan because they are in breech of their ceasfire agreement after WW2 because they have now rebuilt their army. Or Russia would be entitled to invade Germany because they have rebuilt theirs. There has to be an end when you are no longer entitled to restart an old war.
Don't believe the tories will save your hospital. They will not. They have a policy of saving money and in the NHS this currently means amalgamating things into bigger and bigger hospitals. This was Tory policy before and labour inherited it. Tory central office has also stated that even though individual MPs may support a local campaign, this does not mean that they will back him if they win.
Howard might now be more independant of Bush. The invasion has already happened and we can not just walk away. So in fact there is nothing now which Howard could do differently. He can afford to officially distance himself from Bush a little wheras Blair is still saddled with supporting his original decision. But if Howard had been prime minister when Bush asked for his favour, I think he would have done exactly the same as Blair. Any British prime minister is obliged to help if America asks, because of the wonderful 'special relationship'.
The attourney general said it would be legal to invade either if the Un said yes, or if sadam indeed did have wmd which threatened Britain. He was also arguing that any country could unilaterally decide that sadam had broken his ceasfire agreement and hence anyone could invade him. A very dodgy argument invented by the Americans which we used to disagree with. Next someone will say that China is entitled to invade Japan because they are in breech of their ceasfire agreement after WW2 because they have now rebuilt their army. Or Russia would be entitled to invade Germany because they have rebuilt theirs. There has to be an end when you are no longer entitled to restart an old war.
Don't believe the tories will save your hospital. They will not. They have a policy of saving money and in the NHS this currently means amalgamating things into bigger and bigger hospitals. This was Tory policy before and labour inherited it. Tory central office has also stated that even though individual MPs may support a local campaign, this does not mean that they will back him if they win.
Howard might now be more independant of Bush. The invasion has already happened and we can not just walk away. So in fact there is nothing now which Howard could do differently. He can afford to officially distance himself from Bush a little wheras Blair is still saddled with supporting his original decision. But if Howard had been prime minister when Bush asked for his favour, I think he would have done exactly the same as Blair. Any British prime minister is obliged to help if America asks, because of the wonderful 'special relationship'.
Two reasons for Blair to lie:
One, that without WMD he had no legal justification for war and might theoretically be arrested as a war criminal. Has certainly happened to some of those ex-leaders in central Europe.
Two, that if he explained the real reasons no one at all would have agreed with having an invasion.
Bur like I said, he probably had no choice because the Americans were calling in a 'favour'.
One, that without WMD he had no legal justification for war and might theoretically be arrested as a war criminal. Has certainly happened to some of those ex-leaders in central Europe.
Two, that if he explained the real reasons no one at all would have agreed with having an invasion.
Bur like I said, he probably had no choice because the Americans were calling in a 'favour'.
You're be in tears with this one!chainsaw_masochist said:Excellent....I have just p*ss*ed my pants laughing at that.
Bush & Blair
if i had my way it would be against the law to not vote.and it should also be against the law to not vote labour.how many were crucified by that excuse of a human being they called thatcher.with all there problems,they are still the party of the working class,you can't please everyone.look at the bigger picture.
Sponsored Links