Tony Blair is going

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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!
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?

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]

Originally Posted by jumpy

hehe you guys!
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?

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

Originally Posted by August

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
'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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by jumpy

OT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Dent
'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]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

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.

Originally Posted by August

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!

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

[August]

Originally Posted by SubSerpent

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!

(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]

Originally Posted by SubSerpent

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!

(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.