Tony Blair is going

[STEED]

Well I will not miss him at all. :smug:


http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
I will quit within a year - Blair

Tony Blair has confirmed he will be stepping down as prime minister within the next 12 months.
Mr Blair said the Labour conference in two weeks' time would be his last.
He did not set a precise date but said he would do so in the future - when it was in the best interests of the country. And he apologised for the internal rows in the Labour party over his exit saying the past week "has not been our finest hour, to be frank".


The announcement follows 48 hours of bitter feuding and a string of resignations over Mr Blair's refusal to name an exit date.

There has to be some certainty about who the leader is before the summer break
Jack Straw


Mr Blair said: "I think what is important now is that we understand that it's the interests of the country that come first and we move on.
"I would have preferred to do this in my own way but it has been pretty obvious from what many of my Cabinet colleagues have said earlier in the week.
"The next party conference in a couple of weeks will be my last party conference as party leader, the next TUC conference next week will be my last TUC - probably to the relief of both of us.
"But I am not going to set a precise date now. I don't think that's right. I will do that at a future date and I'll do it in the interests of the country and depending on the circumstances of the time."
'Civil war'
There are hopes among Mr Blair's supporters that the prime minister's words will end damaging speculation over his future.
But other Labour MPs are saying it will not be enough to end civil war in the party.
Speaking before the prime minister's announcement, left wing backbencher Jeremy Corbyn said: "We need a date from the prime minister."
Chancellor Gordon Brown has said he will support Mr Blair in whatever decision he takes about his future.
"I am determined that in the months and years to come we continue to do our duty by the people of Britain - and it is my determination and his to do that - that will influence everything that happens in the time to come," said Mr Brown, speaking earlier.
'Comfortable'
Mr Blair's official spokesman said earlier that Mr Blair would not be "giving a running commentary" on exit dates.
Commons leader Jack Straw moved to calm speculation by saying voters would expect Mr Blair to stay "to the halfway point of a normal four-year parliament", which would be May.
But Downing Street has rejected suggestions a deal had been struck to hand over power on 4 May, three days after Mr Blair notches up 10 years in power and the day after local elections.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Just resign Tony and call an election
Edward Dowty, Kings Lynn, UK


Mr Blair has been under pressure to quit earlier than May in order to get a new leader in place before elections in England, Scotland and Wales - which are expected to be disastrous for Labour.
Mr Brown - the man most likely to succeed Mr Blair - was also thought to be unhappy at the prospect of taking over at the end of a Parliamentary session.
The two men were reported to have to have had an "acrimonious meeting" over the issue on Wednesday morning. It was followed by a day of open warfare between supporters of the chancellor and Mr Blair over when the prime minister should quit.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5322094.stm

Published: 2006/09/07 14:36:07 GMT

© BBC MMVI

[SubSerpent]

Good, maybe Bush will do the same and they can both go off and start their homosexual relationship together in the "free" Iraq that they both built!

[STEED]

Good, maybe Bush will do the same and they can both go off and start their homosexual relationship together in the "free" Iraq that they both built!

That's strong stuff. :hmm:

[Kapitan]

Its about time too, now maybe we can focus on bringing tax down maybe?

[STEED]

Its about time too, now maybe we can focus on bringing tax down maybe?

What under Gordon Brown :rotfl: The country is in the red, consumer debt is over £1 Trillion and the Government is the same. :nope:

GAME OVER :damn:

[Godalmighty83]

britain isnt really in the red, its debts are trifle compared to the US's, and isnt it 1 trillian in US numeracy and not the system the uk uses?

the pound is very strong and interest rates of 4.75% are very reasonable, thats why brussles are so desperate for the brits to sign up to the euro, it will the euro a massive boost.

[Skybird]

No reason to celebrate - the mess has already been done. He should have been kicked out of office many years earlier. Sooner or later every career is ending by the natural flow of time. This can hardly been seen as a victory for democracy or a proof for democracy working well. That it took so many years to get rid of him shows that it does not work too well in fact. Same is true for Bush.

[August]

No reason to celebrate - the mess has already been done. He should have been kicked out of office many years earlier. Sooner or later every career is ending by the natural flow of time. This can hardly been seen as a victory for democracy or a proof for democracy working well. That it took so many years to get rid of him shows that it does not work too well in fact. Same is true for Bush.

:roll: Here we go again. Yet another foreigner trying to tell others how to handle their internal government affairs.

Maybe you Germans ought to straighten out your own political situation before offering criticizing somebody elses.

[SubSerpent]

Its about time too, now maybe we can focus on bringing tax down maybe?

What under Gordon Brown :rotfl: The country is in the red, consumer debt is over £1 Trillion and the Government is the same. :nope:

GAME OVER :damn:


I imagine Bush is partly responsible for the debt problems of the UK considering he seduced Tony Blair into getting involved into a costly, unwinnable, war, with Iraq. Now Tony Blairs own people hate him and will be glad to see him go. Bush meanwhile, grips and claws onto whatever little support he can find like some sort of Alabama Mountain Tick, as his former supporters turn their heads and backs on him and leave him to wallow in the mess he made. He shall go down in history as THE worst president ever! Right down there with Kennedy, L.B.J, and Nixon... LOL!

[Skybird]

No reason to celebrate - the mess has already been done. He should have been kicked out of office many years earlier. Sooner or later every career is ending by the natural flow of time. This can hardly been seen as a victory for democracy or a proof for democracy working well. That it took so many years to get rid of him shows that it does not work too well in fact. Same is true for Bush.

:roll: Here we go again. Yet another foreigner trying to tell others how to handle their internal government affairs.

Maybe you Germans ought to straighten out your own political situation before offering criticizing somebody elses.
Decisions you make at home and that also have consequences for us are our concerns, too. You are not alone in the world, nor is all world yours alone, you know.

[SubSerpent]

No reason to celebrate - the mess has already been done. He should have been kicked out of office many years earlier. Sooner or later every career is ending by the natural flow of time. This can hardly been seen as a victory for democracy or a proof for democracy working well. That it took so many years to get rid of him shows that it does not work too well in fact. Same is true for Bush.

:roll: Here we go again. Yet another foreigner trying to tell others how to handle their internal government affairs.

Maybe you Germans ought to straighten out your own political situation before offering criticizing somebody elses.
Decisions you make at home and that also have consequences for us are our concerns, too. You are not alone in the world, nor is all world yours alone, you know.

He's a G.W. Bush lapdog, Skybird! He has been infected with ideas of world domination that his master has promissed him!

[August]

He a G.W. Bush lapdog, Skybird! He has been infected with ideas of world domination that his master has promissed him!

Tell me, o tin foil hat wearer, does this world domination that you claim i'm entitled to come with a salary? I mean i'm still waiting for my barrel of Iraqi oil you said we went into Iraq for but it hasn't arrived so this time i want my cash up front...

[August]

Decisions you make at home and that also have consequences for us are our concerns, too. You are not alone in the world, nor is all world yours alone, you know.

I never claimed such, but who we elect as our leaders and whether we keep them in office or give them the boot is our business, not yours.

[Skybird]

Decisions you make at home and that also have consequences for us are our concerns, too. You are not alone in the world, nor is all world yours alone, you know.

I never claimed such, but who we elect as our leaders and whether we keep them in office or give them the boot is our business, not yours.
Repetition, for the slow thinkers amongst us: Decisions you make at home that have consequences for us as well are also our concern. Decisions you make that have no consequences for us, are your concern alone. If you decide to raise the price for tickets when parking wrong, it is not our concern. when you put a set of human jokes into your top offices and they the mess up the world even more than it already was, then that is the world we live in also, and then these figures are our concern. Those silly wars being started and incompetently ofught by Blair and bush have chnaged life inEurope and Germany as well. Like it is our all concern if Iran gets nukes, or not. Like it was your ancestor's concern that the German brought a certain queer leader into office, too, back then, or like it was our concern as well when the soviets set up those SS-20s and Schmidt decided to react and pushed the West for a reaction (Pershing-IIs). There are no isolated nations that can act as if they were in an empty void, not causing consequences for others. If your neighbour plays his radio with 100 dezibel, then it is not only his concern, but yours, too. And if he starts to invite junkies into the house, and thugs camping in his cellar, then it is not his concern, but yours as well if you happen to live in the neighbourhood. Don't even try to turn this into a debate, August, it is ridiculous. Every child understands what I say.

[Sea Demon]

Decisions you make at home and that also have consequences for us are our concerns, too. You are not alone in the world, nor is all world yours alone, you know.

I never claimed such, but who we elect as our leaders and whether we keep them in office or give them the boot is our business, not yours.
Repetition, for the slow thinkers amongst us: Decisions you make at home that have consequences for us as well are also our concern. Decisions you make that have no consequences for us, are your concern alone. If you decide to raise the price for tickets when parking wrong, it is not our concern. when you put a set of human jokes into your top offices and they the mess up the world even more than it already was, then that is the world we live in also, and then these figures are our concern. Those silly wars being started and incompetently ofught by Blair and bush have chnaged life inEurope and Germany as well. Like it is our all concern if Iran gets nukes, or not. Like it was your ancestor's concern that the German brought a certain queer leader into office, too, back then, or like it was our concern as well when the soviets set up those SS-20s and Schmidt decided to react and pushed the West for a reaction (Pershing-IIs). There are no isolated nations that can act as if they were in an empty void, not causing consequences for others. If your neighbour plays his radio with 100 dezibel, then it is not only his concern, but yours, too. And if he starts to invite junkies into the house, and thugs camping in his cellar, then it is not his concern, but yours as well if you happen to live in the neighbourhood. Don't even try to turn this into a debate, August, it is ridiculous. Every child understands what I say.

OK. And you still don't have a say in who we or who the UK elects as their leadership. :p

[August]

Don't even try to turn this into a debate, August, it is ridiculous. Every child understands what I say.

You can belittle me all you want Skybird, but your advice is still worthless to us.

Europeans have badmouthed our leaders ever since "farmer" Washington, through "monkey" Lincoln and on past "crippled Jew" Roosevelt. I see no reason why we should listen to you now.

And Sea Demon is right. You STILL have no say in who we elect as our leaders and furthermore, i'd rather have the worst president possible, even another Clinton, before i'd accept one that listened to European "advice".

The only thing that's obvious, before the fact, is that European nations always want what is good for Europe, not what's good for America. The two are rarely the same thing.

[jumpy]

hehe you guys! :D
Just to see it from another point of view for a moment, disregarding what I actually think of Labour politics, I have to say it's a piss poor job to show such a divided face to the public of this country. In truth Blair has already stated that he will not be standing for the leadership of the Labour party come the next general election. I can well understand his decision not to reveal a 'timetable' to his steping down. What leader in their right mind would go as far as to undermine his powerbase for the relatively short time he has left in office, afterall if he does that who in his own governement would take him or his policies seriously?
To my mind it is a gross negligence on behalf of his party members that they should have allowed such infighting to spill out into the public domain in the first place. But that's typical of politics in this country, where power is wielded by politicians and not statesmen.
Many might like Blair and many might not, but how many of either would relish Gordon Brown as the new PM? Regardless of the man, I just don't like the look of him. Silly, no? :lol:

By definition politicians are a self serving lot and easlily swayed by majority oppinion, else they loose that power of office. It has been a long time since we had any true statesmen in charge, entrusted to do what is right for Britain and not to allow personal vagaries to influence their behaviour or decisions. But I guess that's democratic rule for you; you never quite get what you want or need.
Like Arthur Dent, trying to get a cup of tea from the Sirrius Cybernetics Corporation Nutrimatic machine on board the starship Heart of Gold. No matter how detailed his description of what he wanted to drink he invariably got a substance that was almost but not quite entirely unlike tea, every time. And when he did sit down with the machine to wrangle a decent cuppa out of its circuits it took so much computing power that it very nearly led to the destruction of the ship and everyone on board... how typical.

[August]

hehe you guys! :D
Just to see it from another point of view for a moment, disregarding what I actually think of Labour politics, I have to say it's a piss poor job to show such a divided face to the public of this country. In truth Blair has already stated that he will not be standing for the leadership of the Labour party come the next general election. I can well understand his decision not to reveal a 'timetable' to his steping down. What leader in their right mind would go as far as to undermine his powerbase for the relatively short time he has left in office, afterall if he does that who in his own governement would take him or his policies seriously?
To my mind it is a gross negligence on behalf of his party members that they should have allowed such infighting to spill out into the public domain in the first place. But that's typical of politics in this country, where power is wielded by politicians and not statesmen.
Many might like Blair and many might not, but how many of either would relish Gordon Brown as the new PM? Regardless of the man, I just don't like the look of him. Silly, no? :lol:

By definition politicians are a self serving lot and easlily swayed by majority oppinion, else they loose that power of office. It has been a long time since we had any true statesmen in charge, entrusted to do what is right for Britain and not to allow personal vagaries to influence their behaviour or decisions. But I guess that's democratic rule for you; you never quite get what you want or need.
Like Arthur Dent, trying to get a cup of tea from the Sirrius Cybernetics Corporation Nutrimatic machine on board the starship Heart of Gold. No matter how detailed his description of what he wanted to drink he invariably got a substance that was almost but not quite entirely unlike tea, every time. And when he did sit down with the machine to wrangle a decent cuppa out of its circuits it took so much computing power that it very nearly led to the destruction of the ship and everyone on board... how typical.

Other than the Arthur Dent part which i have no idea what that's about, i agree with the rest of your post 100%.

[Skybird]

Why do I talk. You still say Iraq is an open thing, and you still ignore that Afghanistan is a lost case, too. That you deny that Ameircan politics directly affect almost all other nations on the globe, too, just fits into a scheme - that of ignorance (Ignoranz), and never reflecting self-centrism.

The arrogance of empires.

[snowsub]

Blair & Bush should be taking lessons from John Howard, he's got a 2:1 margin for preferred PM against the Opposition leader and more than that against his nearest party next-in-line (peter Costello). Basically the public want him to leader rather than anyone else, by a long way.

And as much as some people don't like him, the vast majority know he's got what it takes to do the job, regardless of how they like his policies. Ie He's not wishy/washy and will do what he thinks best regardless of pandering to popular opinion. (And most australian can respect that)

There's no way JH would be drawn into making a binding descision on when to retire (and there's been many many attempts to pin him down). IMO he'll take his party through the next election (and win) and could even go another full term. (I doubt he'll go the next full term, he'll step down somewhere when he feels like he's done all he want to)

[jumpy]

OT


Other than the Arthur Dent part which i have no idea what that's about, i agree with the rest of your post 100%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Dent :up:
'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' is one of my all time favourite series of books containing some very astute analogys to british life etc.

[August]

Why do I talk. You still say Iraq is an open thing, and you still ignore that Afghanistan is a lost case, too. That you deny that Ameircan politics directly affect almost all other nations on the globe, too, just fits into a scheme - that of ignorance (Ignoranz), and never reflecting self-centrism.

The arrogance of empires.

Yes, and the impotence of former empires.

We have a saying here in the States, it's kinda dated now but still applicable i think:

"It ain't over until the fat lady sings".

As long as we have boots on the ground in those countries and my country doesn't elect some weakling in 08 who will cut and run, she ain't sung. FWIW I even still hold out hope for your country too Skybird. Call it an irrational belief in my mothers homeland but it's far better than your "woe is us the Muslims are taking over" brand of defeatism.

[Onkel Neal]

Why do I talk. You still say Iraq is an open thing, and you still ignore that Afghanistan is a lost case, too. That you deny that Ameircan politics directly affect almost all other nations on the globe, too, just fits into a scheme - that of ignorance (Ignoranz), and never reflecting self-centrism.

The arrogance of empires.

Yes, and the impotence of former empires.

We have a saying here in the States, it's kinda dated now but still applicable i think:

"It ain't over until the fat lady sings".

As long as we have boots on the ground in those countries and my country doesn't elect some weakling in 08 who will cut and run, she ain't sung. FWIW I even still hold out hope for your country too Skybird. Call it an irrational belief in my mothers homeland but it's far better than your "woe is us the Muslims are taking over" brand of defeatism.

Well said. Better to fight and lose than to cringe in babbling fear. We all know one thing, we cannot talk terrorists into submission. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars are not slam dunks, and I would have handled it very differently if I were Pres, but at least we're doing something.

Blair. Not familiar with his economic policies but I get the feeling his leaving is like when the Brits dumped Churchill. Wasn't all peaches and cream after that, until Thatcher came along.

[August]

OT


Other than the Arthur Dent part which i have no idea what that's about, i agree with the rest of your post 100%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Dent :up:
'The Hitchhhikers Guide to the Galaxy' is one of my all time favourite series of books containing some very astute analogys to british life etc.

Ahh i wondered why that name was vaguely familiar. I saw the movie some time ago but haven't had the chance to read the series yet. Thanks for the reminder.

[August]

Well said. Better to fight and lose than to cringe in babbling fear.

Thanks. That does seem to be the modern European approach to external threats with the notable exception of the British.

[SubSerpent]

Why do I talk. You still say Iraq is an open thing, and you still ignore that Afghanistan is a lost case, too. That you deny that Ameircan politics directly affect almost all other nations on the globe, too, just fits into a scheme - that of ignorance (Ignoranz), and never reflecting self-centrism.

The arrogance of empires.

Yes, and the impotence of former empires.

We have a saying here in the States, it's kinda dated now but still applicable i think:

"It ain't over until the fat lady sings".

As long as we have boots on the ground in those countries and my country doesn't elect some weakling in 08 who will cut and run, she ain't sung. FWIW I even still hold out hope for your country too Skybird. Call it an irrational belief in my mothers homeland but it's far better than your "woe is us the Muslims are taking over" brand of defeatism.

Well, your republican president Nixon must have been a fat lady!?! Because Nixon (your republican) president was the one who up and ran from Nam!:doh:

(SubSerpent bucks his stuff wildly at that come back with full force. Almost pulls a back muscle!)

[August]

Well, your republican president Nixon must have been a fat lady!?! Because Nixon (your republican) president was the one who up and ran from Nam!:doh:

(SubSerpent bucks his stuff wildly at that come back with full force. Almost pulls a back muscle!)
Your trolling attempt is kinda weak me bucko. My Republican president? I was 8 years old when Nixon became President. How old were you?

As for Nixon up and running. After 8 years of Democrat mismanagement and a hostile Democrat controlled Congress he had no choice but to go along with it.

Now run along and let the grownups talk.

[Onkel Neal]

Why do I talk. You still say Iraq is an open thing, and you still ignore that Afghanistan is a lost case, too. That you deny that Ameircan politics directly affect almost all other nations on the globe, too, just fits into a scheme - that of ignorance (Ignoranz), and never reflecting self-centrism.

The arrogance of empires.

Yes, and the impotence of former empires.

We have a saying here in the States, it's kinda dated now but still applicable i think:

"It ain't over until the fat lady sings".

As long as we have boots on the ground in those countries and my country doesn't elect some weakling in 08 who will cut and run, she ain't sung. FWIW I even still hold out hope for your country too Skybird. Call it an irrational belief in my mothers homeland but it's far better than your "woe is us the Muslims are taking over" brand of defeatism.

Well, your republican president Nixon must have been a fat lady!?! Because Nixon (your republican) president was the one who up and ran from Nam!:doh:

(SubSerpent bucks his stuff wildly at that come back with full force. Almost pulls a back muscle!)

True, Nixon was President and pulled the troops... but after years of massive popular outcry.

[Skybird]

Figthing stupid and in the main unwinnable wars that were almost a lost case from the very beginning is no sign of ripeness and reason - but stupidity and blind "actionism". No reason to be proud, but to mourn for the absence of reason. And when fighting, doing it in a most incompetent way, with too much restrictions and too little support, is even more stupid. There is a saying about Hannibal: "You know how to win in battle, but you do not know how to make good use of your victory." Bush/Blair Rumsfeld certainly do not know how to make use of victories (think back at the early beginning of Afghanistan's post-war time, the many promises for assistance that were never kept and the Afghans mainly were left alone, than the US forging alliances with criminal clans and organizations, trusting such structures, finally massively manipulating the election process and trying to install puppets from the outside no Afghan had ever heared of, and doing so against his will - no wonder they turn their backs on us), and when I see with how limited forces on the ground both wars are fought, I also doubt that Rumsfeld (or Olmert) knows how to even win a war. Dilletantism it is called.

You can hope irrationally for that the good fairy queen may turn things in your favour, but looking at the situations in Afghanistan, Irak (and now Lebanon) with a more reasonable mindset results in knowing that it never will happen. That is no pessimistic hoping or wishing for the worst, that is just a realistic assessement. What you evade in the main is admitting that the decisions made were wrong and that those that made them were failing by that, and that you supported them was not especially clever. Like a little kid gets caught with his hands in the candy box and still saying "it is not me!"

You screwed up, from the very beginning, by allowing incompetent fools to make the decisions. That's what happens if you allow politicians to plan wars. The mess, as always, has to be suffered and cleaned behind you by others. It was forseeable from the very beginning, and it has been forseen by many. But you wanted to show your determination and ablity "to act", as you call it, and being better than those stupid Europeans that were whining about Islam and did not engage in activity. How pathetic your motives were! But the actions you came up with were not helpful or constructive, and they strengthened the opposite effects than what you wanted to acchieve, and you actively helped to turn already bad things into worse ones. You have pushed Iraq into the open arms of Iran. Now you hope fopr the Iranioan opposition to save your lost case for you - but ignoring that it was you yourself that helped to crush this opposition some years ago by answering it's carefull calls for more liberties with complete ignorrationa nd hostile rethoric salvos that only served the purposes of the conservatives, for the opposition did not want to take over the complete American model, and that is an affront that you do not forgive. There is nothing better, more free and more democratic than America, how could anyone dare to deny that and not wanting to be like that...? Reminds me of your expectations that the Shias in Iraq will be eternally thankful - despite the fact that you once led them into a rebellion against saddam - and let them down then, resulting in the murdering of tens of thousands of theirs. You have initiated and advertised the greatest and finest terrorist breeding program terror organizations could have hoped for. You stretched your lines beyond reason, got bogged down in two wars, waste your reserves and potentials of your forces - that are well-trained and equipped, but limited in size and availability - and ignore that these are the forces that you maybe soon will need in the real decisive conflicts to come. You wasted your possebilities headlessly, instead of preserving them for the important fights. And while you got them engaged, you still do not put your heart into it and do not do what really needs to be done in war, and fight with a bounded hand. If I were a soldier in your armies, I would wish you to hell for the mess you created - all for nothing, and just to helpt the effect to make our enemies stronger. at the same time you still do business and alliances with highly suspicious states like Saudi Arabia and especially Pakistan, and you tell egypt to become more liberal so that the Islamic fundamentalists have it easier to take it over.

In one year the situation in Afghanistan (since four years constantly detoriating) and Iraq will be even worse than it is today, and today it is already worse than it was one, two, three years ago. But you will still sit here and insist that the thing is open and yet waits to see a decision.

That is not just the arrogance of empires anymore, but a pathologic loss of sense for reality.

Pride cannot replace reason and sense for reality. It just makes you ending up with your head stuck in the wall.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5319522.stm

Professor Michael Clarke of King's College, London, is gloomy in the short term at least.
"If I was Osama Bin Laden sitting in my cave, I would think I was winning," he said.
"I would consider that I am still at large, I have a global movement, I strike a chord with young Muslims everywhere, I am an inspiration not a planner and I have lured the US into wars in Afghanistan and Iraq of my choosing and of my way of fighting. "Nor is the West countering the easy narrative offered by the jihadis. They are, and I agree with the Bush language on this, Islamic fascists, but we are not engaging enough in the war of ideas and are instead dwelling on their actions. They can counter that by dwelling on ours, in a game of moral equivalence."

I do not agree with all of that article, but with much, and it's general aiming direction, and it highlights some aspects again that already are forgotten today, loiek the shifting in the goals of war, from preventing WMD to war ion terror and so forth. The phrase "Islamic facism" is nonsens, nevertheless, for that phrase it referring to a special and typical set of cultural and political and time-depending constellations in Europe, and especially Italy and Germany. It should be labelled "Muhammedan totalitarism".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5326790.stm

Baghdad violence 'not declining'

The Iraqi ministry of health says more than 1,500 people were killed in attacks in Baghdad last month.

The figure is far higher than previously thought, and only slightly lower than July's figure.
US military and Iraqi officials had previously said a major new security operation in Baghdad had dramatically reduced the number of killings.
In the latest violence, three people were killed by a bomb in the Karrada district on Friday.
The bomb apparently targeted a local police commander, who survived the attack.

Revised numbers

The Iraqi health ministry says its final count for violent deaths in Baghdad in August is 1,536.

That is nearly three times the same ministry's estimate issued last week.
Correspondents say this indicates a nearly undiminished level of sectarian and insurgent killings.
Last month the US military spokesman in Iraq, Maj Gen William Caldwell, said the rate of violent deaths in Baghdad had fallen significantly from July to August.
US officials had suggested that the murder rate in Baghdad had dropped 52% in August compared to the daily rate for July. The health ministry's figures are complied from reports by hospitals and mortuaries in Baghdad area.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5326060.stm


Nato troops took over leadership of military operations in the region from the US in July. Many analysts believe there were serious shortcomings in the intelligence assessments that established the initial mission, and that harder fighting was to be expected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5313376.stm
We're fighting a war in southern Afghanistan. This is not an enhanced peace support operation. (...)
Winning engagements and inflicting serious casualties on the Taleban are essential but not sufficient conditions for victory.

[Onkel Neal]

As usual, your opinion is interesting and forcefully put. Sometimes it seems you forget your perspective is... well, your opinion, not necessarily fact. Stupid this, unwinnable that....the future of the war on terror isn't over yet, we'll see how it goes.

[DAB]

:roll: Here we go again. Yet another foreigner trying to tell others how to handle their internal government affairs.

Maybe you Germans ought to straighten out your own political situation before offering criticizing somebody elses.
The only thing that's obvious, before the fact, is that European nations always want what is good for Europe, not what's good for America. The two are rarely the same thing.
Of course people want whats only in their best interest - that is the nature of the human condition and as long as you can exersise free will yourself - you can hardly condem the opinion of an outsider.

But the idea that Europeans have little or no right to express a view on the US leadership is outmodded. The United States government demands and cherrishes its domestic sovereignty and protects that sovereignty well. But the same government demands that its allies limit their own sovereignty to accomidate the United States.

One example is the fact that US immigration officials are now based in major airports in Canada, the United Kingdom the Netherlands on the grounds (a very good idea actually) that its better to be able to screen passengers on US flights before tehy board the plane then after they get off. Yet the United States has refused to allow its allies (even the Canadians) to place some of their immigration officials in US airports because that is an affront to US sovereignty.

Anouther example is the UK/US extradition treaty. The United Kingdom is obliged under this new treaty to extradite individuals accused of crimes to the United States should the United States make a request. The US does not need to provide evidence or make a submission to a UK court. However, the United Kingdom does not have reciprical powers because the United States refuses to ratify the treaty. This means that if I were accused of defrauding a US company - I can be arrested and brought to the United States, but if a US citizen defrauds a UK company - our courts can not do the same.

If the United States is going to make these demands on our own states' sovereignty without allowing us to make the same demands in return - then the United States government has got to accept that it will be subject to scrutiny and critisism by the citizens of its allies. And as I have suggested before - the concept that a critique of your head of state being a critique of the whole population tends to be a phononomum unique to American Politics. Europeans tend to be far more cynrical about political leaders - so if your government invites that debate - they have to accept that it may be conducted according to European rules.

[DAB]

Blair. Not familiar with his economic policies but I get the feeling his leaving is like when the Brits dumped Churchill. Wasn't all peaches and cream after that, until Thatcher came along.
Its not going to be quite like that... I don't think

In Britain, the Prime Minister is not directly elected, constitutionally he is selected by the govening political party to hold the post. In 1945, Churchill faced the consiquences of that. He was very popular - but the British Population remembered that the Conservative Administration of the 1930's (before we went on a war footing) had run out of steam and basicly voted as if they were voting in the election that had been due in 1940*

But in the last five years of the war, Britain had had a coalition government and the government had already planned its programme for the post-war era. Had Churchill won the election, odds are that he would have followed simular policies to Attle - indeed when the conservatives were returned to power 7 or 8 years later, it was on a manifesto to "build" upon the Atlee governments "achievements". In Britain we call this the consensus era.

Today, Britain is in anouther consensus era...and the three major political party's occupy a very narrow ideological position economically. Even the Liberal Democrats who the Conservatives have derrided as being Left Wing are in fact a free market, small state party.

The only space for manovour in British politics is social policy. To be blunt, Tony Blair represents this consensus and when he goes his successor will almost certainly continue where he left off. And that successor is almost certainly Gorden Brown - the man who designed the current economic policy of the UK.





UK constitutional convention allows for elections to be postponed beyond the normal five years in times of national emergency. But the government is expected to resign at the end of the five years so that other political parties can be brought in to share government.

[Onkel Neal]

Blair. Not familiar with his economic policies but I get the feeling his leaving is like when the Brits dumped Churchill. Wasn't all peaches and cream after that, until Thatcher came along.
Its not going to be quite like that... I don't think

In Britain, the Prime Minister is not directly elected, constitutionally he is selected by the govening political party to hold the post. In 1945, Churchill faced the consiquences of that. He was very popular - but the British Population remembered that the Conservative Administration of the 1930's (before we went on a war footing) had run out of steam and basicly voted as if they were voting in the election that had been due in 1940*

But in the last five years of the war, Britain had had a coalition government and the government had already planned its programme for the post-war era. Had Churchill won the election, odds are that he would have followed simular policies to Attle - indeed when the conservatives were returned to power 7 or 8 years later, it was on a manifesto to "build" upon the Atlee governments "achievements". In Britain we call this the consensus era.



Ok, thanks. I learn something everyday from you guys :up:

[SubSerpent]

Britain is another foriegn land that was easily taken from by America. The Brits (well Tony Blair anyways and his followers) practically lept into G.W. Bush's arms once old G.W. declared war on the world. Old Tony wanted to go peacefully, like an animal that knows it's about to be conquered by its predator. Tony ran quickly to hide under the skirt of Bush right from the beginning just like a child would to his mom once he/she saw that look of "I'm gonna whip your ass" that only a mother can give as she glares at her misbehaving childern. The inevitable "leg wrap" that a child who wants to be protected and shielded from the hell that the mother was/or is about to dish out onto the guilty ones makes this so obvious that Bush took over Britain without even using a military force. :rotfl:

[Onkel Neal]

Tony ran quickly to hide under the skirt of Bush right from the beginning just like a child would to his mom once he/she saw that look of "I'm gonna whip your ass" that only a mother can give as she glares at her misbehaving childern.

I like how you are able to reduce complex political issues into simple terms! :hmm:

[TteFAboB]

One example is the fact that US immigration officials are now based in major airports in Canada, the United Kingdom the Netherlands on the grounds (a very good idea actually) that its better to be able to screen passengers on US flights before tehy board the plane then after they get off. Yet the United States has refused to allow its allies (even the Canadians) to place some of their immigration officials in US airports because that is an affront to US sovereignty.

The US had 9/11, Canada didn't. Not long ago 10 airplanes nearly got hijacked to be exploded over the American coast. You accepted the demands, why are you complaining? You've shown compassion towards all the innocent lives of any nationality that could die in a major terror attack, I applaud your virtue.

Anouther example is the UK/US extradition treaty. The United Kingdom is obliged under this new treaty to extradite individuals accused of crimes to the United States should the United States make a request. The US does not need to provide evidence or make a submission to a UK court. However, the United Kingdom does not have reciprical powers because the United States refuses to ratify the treaty. This means that if I were accused of defrauding a US company - I can be arrested and brought to the United States, but if a US citizen defrauds a UK company - our courts can not do the same.

The Americans cannot obligate the British to do anything. The UK AGREED to the treaty. The greatest number of proponents of international law, multi-lateralism and globalism are in Europe, not in America (considering the UN to be international soil :smug: ), therefore to blame America for international legal conflicts is ridiculous. Stop promoting international law first if you find it to be so problematic and lacking in reciprocity, I'll help, I do. It is outrageous for you to be subject of foreign governments and God willing such a thing shall never happen to American citizens. From what I understand you would actually like US citizens to be under the same condition instead of protecting the British citizens from such vulnerability, if so then you get what you wish for.

If the United States is going to make these demands on our own states' sovereignty without allowing us to make the same demands in return - then the United States government has got to accept that it will be subject to scrutiny and critisism by the citizens of its allies. And as I have suggested before - the concept that a critique of your head of state being a critique of the whole population tends to be a phononomum unique to American Politics. Europeans tend to be far more cynrical about political leaders - so if your government invites that debate - they have to accept that it may be conducted according to European rules.

You criticise America instead of criticizing your own government for accepting "these demands". Blame America first?! Why don't you start by scrutinizing and criticizing your own policies? Because you actually agree to them and would like the US to be reciprocal I suppose. Then again you are getting what you want. Don't complain then simply because the other side has more respect for its own sovereignty.

I'll pass the debate with "European rules" if that means being cynical towards politicians because they aren't elected by anybody but nominated to overrule your own country's democratic parliaments, laws and sovereignty.

DAB, are you talking about national sovereignty from the point of view of Wales? A Principality SUBJECT to the United Kingdom that is in turn SUBJECT to the European Commission! How about getting Wales to the same position Scotland enjoys then going further like Greenland and bail the EU, then we can talk about states' sovereignty.

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/1497/pitbull2crmu7.jpg
:lol: I can talk, I'm Italian, give me a referendum to ditch the EU and you have my vote.

[Skybird]

As usual, your opinion is interesting and forcefully put. Sometimes it seems you forget your perspective is... well, your opinion, not necessarily fact. Stupid this, unwinnable that....the future of the war on terror isn't over yet, we'll see how it goes.
The decision to wage war on Iraq never had anything to do with something like a war on terror ;) As the just released Senate report also concludes on the basis of CIA reports (and Republicans and Democrats already concluded years earlier) there were no links and no cooperation between Saddam's regime and Al Quaeda. Saddam always was suspicious of any religious fundamentalism and movement (due to the fact that it harbours fanatical sentiments), and Osama always saw the Saudis and guys like Saddam as the most treacherous enemy of true Islam. The war on terror was just a lying phrase being used for pushing public sentiments towards accepting to attack Iraq. Are there still any people falling for this nonsens in the US...? Hard to believe.

[DAB]

lol - I don't actually understand why your being confrontational and hostile - especially when I wrote the post your quoting deliberatly to not have any confrontational!? Surely that undermines credable discussion.

On the first issue you choose to quote - you accused me of complaining, despite the fact that I actually say in the quote I think its a good idea!? (I've highlighted the relevant bits)

One example is the fact that US immigration officials are now based in major airports in Canada, the United Kingdom the Netherlands on the grounds (a very good idea actually) that its better to be able to screen passengers on US flights before tehy board the plane then after they get off. Yet the United States has refused to allow its allies (even the Canadians) to place some of their immigration officials in US airports because that is an affront to US sovereignty.
The US had 9/11, Canada didn't. Not long ago 10 airplanes nearly got hijacked to be exploded over the American coast. You accepted the demands, why are you complaining?

On the next point below, you go on about International Law. (Presumably from your negative tone, your not a fan of the Positivist doctrine that most European lawyers use and prefer something based more on the Yale School theory). Yet I don't think I referenced International Law once in the post your quoting. The Extradition Treaty is Bilateral - for a treaty to be part of Internaitonal Law it must be Multilateral. I teach International Law, so I'm unlikely to make that error!?

Anouther example is the UK/US extradition treaty. The United Kingdom is obliged under this new treaty to extradite individuals accused of crimes to the United States should the United States make a request. The US does not need to provide evidence or make a submission to a UK court. However, the United Kingdom does not have reciprical powers because the United States refuses to ratify the treaty. This means that if I were accused of defrauding a US company - I can be arrested and brought to the United States, but if a US citizen defrauds a UK company - our courts can not do the same.
The Americans cannot obligate the British to do anything. The UK AGREED to the treaty. The greatest number of proponents of international law, multi-lateralism and globalism are in Europe, not in America (considering the UN to be international soil :smug: ), therefore to blame America for international legal conflicts is ridiculous. Stop promoting international law first if you find it to be so problematic and lacking in reciprocity, I'll help, I do. It is outrageous for you to be subject of foreign governments and God willing such a thing shall never happen to American citizens. From what I understand you would actually like US citizens to be under the same condition instead of protecting the British citizens from such vulnerability, if so then you get what you wish for.

If the United States is going to make these demands on our own states' sovereignty without allowing us to make the same demands in return - then the United States government has got to accept that it will be subject to scrutiny and critisism by the citizens of its allies. And as I have suggested before - the concept that a critique of your head of state being a critique of the whole population tends to be a phononomum unique to American Politics. Europeans tend to be far more cynrical about political leaders - so if your government invites that debate - they have to accept that it may be conducted according to European rules.

You criticise America instead of criticizing your own government for accepting "these demands". Blame America first?! Why don't you start by scrutinizing and criticizing your own policies? Because you actually agree to them and would like the US to be reciprocal I suppose. Then again you are getting what you want. Don't complain then simply because the other side has more respect for its own sovereignty.

I'll pass the debate with "European rules" if that means being cynical towards politicians because they aren't elected by anybody but nominated to overrule your own country's democratic parliaments, laws and sovereignty.
I don't think I have ever suggested I'm not critical of my own government. I just chose to focus on one part of the debate on this forum

DAB, are you talking about national sovereignty from the point of view of Wales? A Principality SUBJECT to the United Kingdom that is in turn SUBJECT to the European Commission! How about getting Wales to the same position Scotland enjoys then going further like Greenland and bail the EU, then we can talk about states' sovereignty.
To be frank, I don't follow the first bit and as an International Lawyer myself (and one who specialises in National Sovereignty) I'm going to have to really bite my tounge on the second bit.

Wales is Subject to the United Kingdom in the same way Texas is subject to the United States. Your emplying that Wales is somehow an occupied state, yet we are recognised as a constitutent nation of the British Union under the Act of Union 1707, The Laws in Wales Act of 1535 (ammended 1542) and The Statute of Rhuddlan (pronounced Rough-lan) 1284. If anything, under the current UK constitution, the Welsh are privilaged over the English because Welsh MP's can vote on English matter, but English MP's can't vote on Welsh Matters. Exactly the same position the Scots are in!

[STEED]

OT


Other than the Arthur Dent part which i have no idea what that's about, i agree with the rest of your post 100%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Dent :up:
'The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' is one of my all time favourite series of books containing some very astute analogys to british life etc.


42
:D :D :D :D

[TteFAboB]

It's on wikipedia, therefore it's the truth (it's a joke):

Current political debate in Wales is about whether the National Assembly should be given more powers, such as the power to pass primary legislation, as the Scottish Parliament (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament) can in Scotland.

Perhaps you should take a look at the rest of the article, it could've been written by the English, you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales

You like the idea but not the lack of reciprocity. I don't like the lack of reciprocity either. It's always good to remember the cause of this is another lack of reciprocity: from the terrorists who do not grant to us what we grant to them. The Positivist right to travel safely by air land or sea, the Positivist right to walk without fear of blasts, the Positivist right to be free from incitation of hatred by infuriated clerics, etc.

You're most definitely unlikely to make any error in what you teach. That's what everybody usually, naturally and Positivistically rightfully expects (this is another joke). So you might aswell know the realm of International Law better than most to acknowledge that the greatest goal of its proponents is the superseding of sovereign national law by international bodies. This is my point, only. Let's say this is your desire, your belief, how can one complain against a bi-lateral treaty when one wants to overrule a nation's entire legal sovereingty? Perhaps you don't like to hear this from me, well, I am speaking out of realism. There are many people in this field who are honest and of good will and the concept can be seen as great and noble, a very good idea, I simply do not see them in command of the process, being put out of the way instead by the more opportunistic bureaucrats. But it's their merit anyway. While others theorize and philosophize about the greatness of International Law, which is every lawyer's greatest dream, this highly organized pack of wolves is ready to take control of the ground as soon as the structure is set (The Bertrand Russell Tribunal I and II, Permanent People's Tribunal, International Criminal Court and etc).

Here's something less hostile:
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/1238/welshterrieroz2.jpg

[XabbaRus]

And Sea Demon is right. You STILL have no say in who we elect as our leaders and furthermore, i'd rather have the worst president possible, even another Clinton, before i'd accept one that listened to European "advice".

The only thing that's obvious, before the fact, is that European nations always want what is good for Europe, not what's good for America. The two are rarely the same thing.

And over here in Europe I am sure it can be said that America just wants what is good for America not Europe, regardless of what reasoning comes out of teh White House. The two are rarely the same.

At the end of the day Blair is going to leave, he ahs got his page in history for all the wrong reasons. He will be remembered as the most pro-American UK premier, he ven beats Maggie. One thing about Maggie she had no problem telling Reagan if she didn't agree with him, and she was well pissed about Grenada, caused a bit of a ruction I think.

Tony Blair is so in awe of Bush that he can't say no. I'll be glad to see him go though if the Labour party want to prove they uphold democratic principles then they should have an open leadership contest where the party members get to vote, not a closed precession of power to Gordon Brown.

[August]

The decision to wage war on Iraq never had anything to do with something like a war on terror ;) As the just released Senate report also concludes on the basis of CIA reports (and Republicans and Democrats already concluded years earlier) there were no links and no cooperation between Saddam's regime and Al Quaeda. Saddam always was suspicious of any religious fundamentalism and movement (due to the fact that it harbours fanatical sentiments), and Osama always saw the Saudis and guys like Saddam as the most treacherous enemy of true Islam. The war on terror was just a lying phrase being used for pushing public sentiments towards accepting to attack Iraq. Are there still any people falling for this nonsens in the US...? Hard to believe.

What you conveniently ignore Sky, is that just like WW2 was not fought against only Germany, neither is the WoT fought only against Al Quaeda. Among the many other organizations, both governmental and non-govermental, that are now in our sights, there is no denying that Saddams Baathist regime was high on our hit list.

Hindsight can be a wonderful thing for bean counters and after the fact armchair statesmen, but neither you, me or anyone else really knew then, ie beforehand when it counted, exactly what Saddams true capabilities were.

All anyone really did know for sure is that he ran an oppressive and militaristic regime with a recent history of violent expansionism. We knew he would take shots at our planes enforcing the no fly zones,. We knew he was giving the UN inspectors the run around and that he held a deep and abiding hatred, as deep as Al Quaedas, for the west and for the US in particular. He had over a decade to recover from his last drubbing at our hands and from what hindsight tells us, he had every INTENTION of seeking revenge for it.

You don't take on a new enemy while an existing one remains a threat to you, at least not by choice. One would think you Germans, given your last experience in warfare, would understand such a simple concept.

[Sea Demon]

And over here in Europe I am sure it can be said that America just wants what is good for America not Europe, regardless of what reasoning comes out of teh White House. The two are rarely the same.

At the end of the day Blair is going to leave, he ahs got his page in history for all the wrong reasons. He will be remembered as the most pro-American UK premier, he ven beats Maggie. One thing about Maggie she had no problem telling Reagan if she didn't agree with him, and she was well pissed about Grenada, caused a bit of a ruction I think.

Tony Blair is so in awe of Bush that he can't say no. I'll be glad to see him go though if the Labour party want to prove they uphold democratic principles then they should have an open leadership contest where the party members get to vote, not a closed precession of power to Gordon Brown.

The only thing I can say is that America does indeed care and wants what's good for Europe. We've spent so much money, blood, and sacrifice to keep Europe safe for over 50 years. And I'm proud to say that I was a part of it. There was never a doubt why we were there. And the European and USA economies have always been tied for mutual benefits. I can guarantee you America will always help Europe when push comes to shove. It would be nice if some European parties (And I'm not talking about the UK here) wouldn't consistently work to the detriment to America. Whether Europe likes it or not, in many ways what's good for America is also good for Europe. And vice versa.

On your other thoughts, I hear ya.

[August]

Tony Blair is so in awe of Bush that he can't say no. I'll be glad to see him go though if the Labour party want to prove they uphold democratic principles then they should have an open leadership contest where the party members get to vote, not a closed precession of power to Gordon Brown.
I must admit your process for determining your chief executive seems a bit odd to an American like myself who always knows to the minute when ours will leave office. but regardless, you are our friends and allies, and as far as i'm concerned Tony Blairs fate and legacy is for Britian and Britian alone to decide.

Unlike some, I would not presume to tell you who you should elect as your leaders or when you should replace them.

[SubSerpent]

Tony Blair is so in awe of Bush that he can't say no. I'll be glad to see him go though if the Labour party want to prove they uphold democratic principles then they should have an open leadership contest where the party members get to vote, not a closed precession of power to Gordon Brown.
I must admit your process for determining your chief executive seems a bit odd to an American like myself who always knows to the minute when ours will leave office. but regardless, you are our friends and allies, and as far as i'm concerned Tony Blairs fate and legacy is for Britian and Britian alone to decide.

Unlike some, I would not presume to tell you who you should elect as your leaders or when you should replace them.

Well, I'll tell a Brit this much...If G.W. Bush ever leaves America and becomes a citizen of England, don't ever elect him for anything more than being a pooper scooper!

[August]

Well, I'll tell a Brit this much...If G.W. Bush ever leaves America and becomes a citizen of England, don't ever elect him for anything more than being a pooper scooper!

Well isn't that special.

[SubSerpent]

Well, I'll tell a Brit this much...If G.W. Bush ever leaves America and becomes a citizen of England, don't ever elect him for anything more than being a pooper scooper!

Well isn't that special.


It's just GOOD advice. Nothing more, nothing less!:yep:

[Skybird]

August,

what you say is no excuse to mess up a country like Iraq is messed up now. and that it would go that way was forseeable, and it had been forseen by many. Nothing in the situation today is a surprise, only for those uneducated idiots who made the decisions and thought they were so clever. Saddam was no threat, he had no means to pose a threat beyond the borders of his country. The backbone of his army had been crushed in 1991. His teeth had been drawn 1991. He was annoying, and that was all he was. One should have finished him off back then in 1991, but one did not. Okay. That is no excuse to mess up Iraq 2003, because I cannot see in any way that the country is better off now than it was under Saddam and sanctions. Far the opposite, it seems. There is more violance and bloodshed, mutilation crimes, torture and crime taking place then it was the case under Saddam. there is ethinc cleansing, and hate between three groups of people. the list of open bills is mounting every day. The deaths per month are no longer counted in hundreds only. And it constantly becomes worse and worse, since three years. No offensive, no proclamation, no elections have chnaged that. No change in the trend, never. But state structures, military and police infiltrated by the enemy. Administrative structures corrupt. American troops hunkering down in fortified positions, having given up to retake control of the land, they leave the daily violance for the most to the inadequately prepared iraqi security forces. These forces are not guardians of the state, but moving targets.

The war becomes even more ridiculous when looking at the consequences now: civil war, Iran openly operating in Iraq, closing the ties between Iranian and Iraqi Shias, weeks ago there were silent and by most people: overseen reports about Iranian artillery massively shelling the Kurds in the Northwest!, and we see an iranian dominance in Iraq policy that is beyond control, plus a terrible death toll every month. The Mahdi army has hidden away for the most, regrouping, and rearming, and without doubt: now copying the successful model of the Hezbollah that proved that it could bring an Israelis attack to a halt.

You wanted a democracy in Iraq that is friendly to your oil companies. What you have gotten now is a government of helpless death-candiates that are completelöy impotent to acchieve anything that could sdtabilize the situation. what you will get in the forseeable future is a hostile Shia regime that will do it's best in the future to assist Iran and Hezbollah-like organizations, and terrorism. What you already get now is a constant stream of suppoort for Muhammedan terrorism, thanks to your policies there are more young men joining such groups now then there would have been without the Iraq war. There is not less, but more terrorist activity in the world today. You acchieved exactly the opposite of what you wanted. As a correspondent mentioned yesterday, it will take at least one generation until the flames of tdoay will become calm again - when today's fanatical jhihadis have turned into tired old men. For demographic reasons and projected birthrates I even say it will take not one, but two generations. Then islamic society will stand where the Europeans are today: they will be crowded, old, overaged, and have too little children. but they will be even worse prepared to cope with that situation than the Western people are today.

until then, we need to survive Islam. For the next 50-70 years, the initiative will be his own, and it will be on a cinstant attack and offensive trying to overthrow the West and capture it. If we sit it out that long, we have won, and the Islamic global conquest will brake down for another couple of centuries, until demographies again are in it's favour.

I do not even try to go into the financial costs of the iraq war. The Western societies and economies pay for the changed global situation with direct and indirect finacial investements that rank in the many hundreds of billions each year, it was counted by economical analysts. This costs not only you and the British, but all Western nations. Money that could have been better used, efforts that could have been better spend. For example for beefing up intel structures, and funding military structures so that they are better prepared for the real important fights to come. what has been wasted now, will be missed in the next wars. Motivation, for example. Both America and the British have problems to find willing new recruits. Enthusiams for joining the military has been dramatzically going down, it is reported regularly since over two years now. people have realized that their sons and daughters in uniform actually could die in some distant, godforsaken countries with hostile populations. Fighter pilots, expensive and highly trained specialists, try to cut their military careers short, and go into civilian jobs earlier, for getting a better payment. Payments for veterans have been cut, another boost for the morale... . Material resupply programs have been thinned out. Morale amonst troops in Iraq is said to be low, and angry. this war proiduces you tens of thoiusands of men and women that will suffer from visible and invisible inner wounds, often for a lifetime. All this will take it's revenge in the next wars of yours. Say Iran, if it is decided to try that (what I doubt, an if so, it will be a war that sees the use of special nukes). A surprinsingly sparking Middle East war. North Korea. Maybe even China.

All this because George wanted to show his Daddy that finally he can be as tough a big boy as his Daddy was. Family business is what the Iraq war has been, last but not least oil family business. You are not aware of it, not yet, but what Bush has acchieved is a very substantial detoriation of your country's strategical position. Your stand today is weaker, not stronger, and your population is deeply divided, not united. Polarisation.

I see it like a chess player, and moves can be forseen, and combinations can be calculated, too, it is not like that a future outcome is hidden in time and cannot be calculated in advance. Bush made a series of incredibly stupid moves, loosing space on both wings, ripping one or two very explopitable holes into the former defensive line - and now thinking the opponent will not try to take advantage of it. bush is a very incometent strategist, and an even worse tactician. He does not know how to improve when there is nothign to do, and he does not know what right things to do if there is something to do. He has red a book with the rules, not more, and now he tries to cinvince the oublic that he is able to make sense of what he red. but his heavy figures are locked in crowded positions where they can't leave and can't move forward, where they cannot double on the lines and where they cannot project the influence they are potewntially capable of. And the rest is locked in sentry duty to guard the King who has castled and given up room and tried to form a bunker with all his figures around him. You think you are still in the offensive. You are wrong. Bush has given initiative out of hand. you do not act anymore. You have created yourself so many problems that now all you do with your stretched lines is - reacting to the enemy. It is the enemy choosing the time, the place, the conditions, and the weapons. It is the enemy making you to react, not the other way around. He also has more time and more pawns available. Time is working against you, time is working for him. With each week going by, your - and that means: our - situation gets harder to defend, and the enemy became stronger. That you do not pull out from Iraq reminds me of Hitler always rejecting that a frontline that was too stretched, should be shortened so that it becomes defendable again. Sometimes more chances for the future are regained by giving ground in death-locked situations. You/America/we have nothing more to win in Iraq, it's a lost case. We just waste precious ressources in money, material, and personnell. All of the three currently directly assist Iran in erecting it's own regime in Iraq. Great! Aamerican lifes for helping the Iranian mullahs. Sometimes i don't understand you Americans. You never seem to realize in time when it is enough and the match is lost.

Plus, and this I said repeatedly before: what you say now, and what Bush sais now, is not what was given before the war as reasons to go to war. Reasons given before a war are explanations. Reasons invented after a war, and undergoing several linguistic changes, are no reasons or explanations, but foul excuses. Not to mention that no evidence, no proof, no serious hints had been found for the statements about the threat Iraq poses before the war 2003.

Iraq war had nothing - NOTHING - to do with war on terror (silly phrase, like saying: let's wage war against Messerschmidts or Tigers, where it was a war against fascist ideology taking control of Europe). The decison for it had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing. The Iraq war already had been demanded and written down in thinking papers by Wolfowitz almost ten years before Bush took over. the decision to attack had been done years before 9/11. The rest in explanations - were excuses, and exclusively so.

You do no longer battle an organization named Al Quaeda, since years now you need to prepare to fight your true enemy: that is, a way of thinking and believing that is labelled as Al Quaeda. You have not even identified your enemy correctly. But when one's only tool is a hammer, one tends to define every problem as a nail...

[Skybird]

Everyone who helped to hijack this thread now raises his hand! :)

[SubSerpent]

Damn. :roll: :doh:

Fingers a bit sore SkyBird?

[Onkel Neal]

Damn. :roll: :doh:

Fingers a bit sore SkyBird?

You should have seen him in action on the old phpBB forums, before we imposed a 20,000,000 word limit!

[nikimcbee]

Tony Blair is so in awe of Bush that he can't say no. I'll be glad to see him go though if the Labour party want to prove they uphold democratic principles then they should have an open leadership contest where the party members get to vote, not a closed precession of power to Gordon Brown.
I must admit your process for determining your chief executive seems a bit odd to an American like myself who always knows to the minute when ours will leave office. but regardless, you are our friends and allies, and as far as i'm concerned Tony Blairs fate and legacy is for Britian and Britian alone to decide.

Unlike some, I would not presume to tell you who you should elect as your leaders or when you should replace them.

Well, I'll tell a Brit this much...If G.W. Bush ever leaves America and becomes a citizen of England, don't ever elect him for anything more than being a pooper scooper!

ok you win...You can have Bush, but to be bi-partisan, Kennedy, J F-in' Kerry, Algore, and Clinton-Rodham-Marx MUST go with him, to never hold power in the US again.:up:

[nikimcbee]

...Pelosi is too much of a freak to last 5 minutes outside of California. Besides, they deserve her.:doh:

Hymn of San Fransisco Socialist Republic.:rock:
http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporary_url_20060509kctqm/anthem-sovietunion-1943.mp3

[DAB]

I must admit your process for determining your chief executive seems a bit odd to an American like myself who always knows to the minute when ours will leave office. but regardless, you are our friends and allies, and as far as i'm concerned Tony Blairs fate and legacy is for Britian and Britian alone to decide.

Unlike some, I would not presume to tell you who you should elect as your leaders or when you should replace them.

I'd point out the Chief Executive is the monarch, which in modern constitutional form means the Privy Council - not the Cabinet. (Which is a sub-committee of the Privy Council). The point with the British system is that the Prime Minister does not occupy the office directly - but rather is appointed by the faction that dominates the legislative. It provides a degree of stability which is useful.



But back onto point. I still fail to understand why on a debating forum Americans can not hold opinions on the British Leadership and vice versa. As I said in a previous post (before it was completly hijacked), by nature states have relationships, develop agreements or disputes. The leadership of the United States had a major impact on the lives of Iraqi's - your suggesting that the average Iraqi should not be allowed to hold a view on the performance of the American President!?

And from a more theory point of view. What is there to fear about someone logging onto this forum and hearing the views on non-Americans on the US leadership. Surely, as long as they are not forced to accept it, there is no harm in someone having the oppertunity to hear outside critisisim?

[Bellman]

Sea Demon ''We've spent so much money, blood, and sacrifice to keep Europe safe for over 50 years.''

I agree completely with your sentiments which are shared here by those who have done their bit. In spite of the wailling of the 'old women' of the left, we stand with America and will always acknowledge and honour our debt to you.

Blair, for all his faults, has channeled these wishes of the centre right. With his departure any return to the left will be punished at the polls by mass defections from Labour. To understand the mechanics of British politics you have to acknowledge the power of the 'Swing' voter. The success of Blair and Browns 'New Labour' project owes much to to keeping right wing elements on board.

A return to union lead attempts for domination in the face of threatening inflation will conjure memories of the 70s with porters deciding who got operations and strikes leaving the dead unburied. The Lemming rush right will abandon the left to more self-defeating years of rejection by the electorate. Another 'Thatcher' could emerge !