Jump to content

Goodbye Blair, a great leader or disappointment .


StrOwez
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tony Blair

 

 

 

 

 

Personally I like the man, he has a great personality and i truly believe the decisions he made were meant to be to the advantage of the united kingdom, however some of them were wrong, everyone makes mistakes.

 

 

 

Overall I think he was one of the best leaders the UK ever had, discuss.

 

 

 

Also your views on Gordon Brown.

 

 

 

Gordon Brown

 

 

 

 

 

BBC article

A friend to all is a friend to none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw on the news, oh well, sometimes he complied with Bush on issues he really shouldn't have.

 

 

 

Being allies he's forced to. Technically you could justify that the Brits still owe the US for WWI and WWII support.

 

 

 

And I liked Blair. He legalized gay marriage, which is great, it means he's for equality and can see past people's exterior appearance and knows what really matters. And as a friend said, he just followed Bush on Iraq, he practically had no choice since the US and Britain are such close allies.

pyroqe6.jpg

Me doing staff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Blair I think He was Truthful most of the time...I cant be asked to get into the Iraq War

 

 

 

 

 

I think Gordon Brown Will be a very strong Leader ...But Hes rutheleness Scares me that hell bring in Ridicolous Rules...And it will go to like a Thatcher Society again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that he did make some wrong decisions, but dont we all? I think that he was a great guy, no way at all up his own arse, and no way stupid like George Bush.

 

 

 

I am happy for Gordan Brown getting the new prime ministers job, but I would of rather David Cameron get it, because I think that he would have made more of an impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Best leader the UK ever had, ever? You're comparing him to primeministers like Pitt, Peel and Gladstone so probably not. He was OK but I think Brown will be stronger and maybe stand up to the Americans more.
Notice how I said One of the best not Thebest.

A friend to all is a friend to none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw on the news, oh well, sometimes he complied with Bush on issues he really shouldn't have.

 

 

 

Being allies he's forced to. Technically you could justify that the Brits still owe the US for WWI and WWII support.

 

 

 

And I liked Blair. He legalized gay marriage, which is great, it means he's for equality and can see past people's exterior appearance and knows what really matters. And as a friend said, he just followed Bush on Iraq, he practically had no choice since the US and Britain are such close allies.

 

 

 

Care to explain how Britain "owes" America a war? "An eye for an eye" you're telling me? A war for a war? :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw on the news, oh well, sometimes he complied with Bush on issues he really shouldn't have.

 

 

 

Being allies he's forced to. Technically you could justify that the Brits still owe the US for WWI and WWII support.

 

 

 

And I liked Blair. He legalized gay marriage, which is great, it means he's for equality and can see past people's exterior appearance and knows what really matters. And as a friend said, he just followed Bush on Iraq, he practically had no choice since the US and Britain are such close allies.

 

 

 

Care to explain how Britain "owes" America a war? "An eye for an eye" you're telling me? A war for a war? :?

 

 

 

Notice how I said One of the best not Thebest.

 

 

 

Don't act like you're intelligent enough to know anything about the people I mentioned.

 

 

 

No, that's called being allies. When you are allies, you support each other, and help with one another's difficulties. The fact that America helped Britain through both World Wars, and vice-versa, only strengthend their alliance, it didn't make either of them "owe" anything.

 

 

 

Wther or not Str0wez knows the rest or not, it doesn't chage the fact that he didn't say he was the best, merely one of the best. You're putting words in his mouth, and now you're trying to justify doing so.

 

 

 

And if you do in fact reply to me, Striker, try to do so without having to insult me to try to defend your point. :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw on the news, oh well, sometimes he complied with Bush on issues he really shouldn't have.

 

 

 

Being allies he's forced to. Technically you could justify that the Brits still owe the US for WWI and WWII support.

 

 

 

And I liked Blair. He legalized gay marriage, which is great, it means he's for equality and can see past people's exterior appearance and knows what really matters. And as a friend said, he just followed Bush on Iraq, he practically had no choice since the US and Britain are such close allies.

 

 

 

Care to explain how Britain "owes" America a war? "An eye for an eye" you're telling me? A war for a war? :?

 

 

 

Notice how I said One of the best not Thebest.

 

 

 

Don't act like you're intelligent enough to know anything about the people I mentioned.

 

 

 

No, that's called being allies. When you are allies, you support each other, and help with one another's difficulties. The fact that America helped Britain through both World Wars, and vice-versa, only strengthend their alliance, it didn't make either of them "owe" anything.

 

 

 

Wther or not Str0wez knows the rest or not, it doesn't chage the fact that he didn't say he was the best, merely one of the best. You're putting words in his mouth, and now you're trying to justify doing so.

 

 

 

And if you do in fact reply to me, Striker, try to do so without having to insult me to try to defend your point. :|

 

 

 

Except, in the words of Viktor 'Technically you could justify that the Brits still owe the US for WWI and WWII support' which is the point in what I was replying to.

 

 

 

America helped their allies in the wars? Ummm no America entered WW2 because they were attacked by the Japanese they wouldn't have declared war on Germany the only reason they went to war with Germany was because hitler declared war on America :| not because "allies support eachother" heh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't act like you're intelligent enough to know anything about the people I mentioned.

 

If I wanted to I could simply find details about them. Just because you misunderstood my statement in the first place doesn't mean you have to insult my intelligence to get back at me in someway or another.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: Keep on topic people

A friend to all is a friend to none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Labour supporter, I can say proudly that Blair is one of the best Prime Ministers the UK had ever bared witness to. Far from popular belief, he's saved the NHS, restored confidence in the public services, restored the public service itself and regenerated areas hit by the mining closures of the previous Tory government. Yes, he want to Iraq, and I never believed he should have, but what I do know is he made that decision for what he saw as the best for all people concerned. He was wrong, but you can't fault his morals or his heart. He certainly didn't suck up to Bush as many seem to point out.

 

 

 

As for Brown? Well, he promises a lot. I obviously hope he can deliver. What satisfies me more with Brown is the fact he's more left wing than Blair, so I'd be happy to see more involvement in the community and a tougher approach towards the change that's needed in the country. Having said that, he just doesn't have the same charisma as Blair. As for the US? Well, he'll certainly challenge their decisions more, and this can only be a good thing. If no country in the world can stand up to America's dominance, then having a country to guide it to less narrow-minded decisions is definietely the next best thing. He's decided to stay in Iraq, and I support him. I'm not patriotic, but the situation in areas where UK troops are based seems to be improving, so I see a purpose in staying there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PBS special did a good job of covering them from the beginning Apparently Blair's aide told him that he should fire Brown, but he couldn't do it. Brown was also one of the most powerful chancellor they ever had. I hope he does stand up to us and tell bush where to stick it :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw on the news, oh well, sometimes he complied with Bush on issues he really shouldn't have.

 

 

 

Being allies he's forced to. Technically you could justify that the Brits still owe the US for WWI and WWII support.

 

 

 

And I liked Blair. He legalized gay marriage, which is great, it means he's for equality and can see past people's exterior appearance and knows what really matters. And as a friend said, he just followed Bush on Iraq, he practically had no choice since the US and Britain are such close allies.

 

 

 

Care to explain how Britain "owes" America a war? "An eye for an eye" you're telling me? A war for a war? :?

 

 

 

Notice how I said One of the best not Thebest.

 

 

 

Don't act like you're intelligent enough to know anything about the people I mentioned.

 

 

 

No, that's called being allies. When you are allies, you support each other, and help with one another's difficulties. The fact that America helped Britain through both World Wars, and vice-versa, only strengthend their alliance, it didn't make either of them "owe" anything.

 

 

 

Wther or not Str0wez knows the rest or not, it doesn't chage the fact that he didn't say he was the best, merely one of the best. You're putting words in his mouth, and now you're trying to justify doing so.

 

 

 

And if you do in fact reply to me, Striker, try to do so without having to insult me to try to defend your point. :|

 

 

 

Except, in the words of Viktor 'Technically you could justify that the Brits still owe the US for WWI and WWII support' which is the point in what I was replying to.

 

 

 

America helped their allies in the wars? Ummm no America entered WW2 because they were attacked by the Japanese they wouldn't have declared war on Germany the only reason they went to war with Germany was because hitler declared war on America :| not because "allies support eachother" heh.

 

 

 

Uhm, no. That may be the reason the US entered the war, but still. If they wanted to, they could've just done it all by themselves (though that would've been difficult), they didn't HAVE to ally themselves with Britain, but due to strategic benefits and previous alliances, they did anyway. It was beneficial to both, and in the end strengthened both nation's ties. So yeah, allies support each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Labour supporter, I can say proudly that Blair is one of the best Prime Ministers the UK had ever bared witness to. Far from popular belief, he's saved the NHS, restored confidence in the public services, restored the public service itself and regenerated areas hit by the mining closures of the previous Tory government. Yes, he want to Iraq, and I never believed he should have, but what I do know is he made that decision for what he saw as the best for all people concerned. He was wrong, but you can't fault his morals or his heart. He certainly didn't suck up to Bush as many seem to point out.

 

 

 

 

Oh ginger, I regret having to do this I really do.

 

 

 

saved the NHS? Poured money into managers, penny counters and pencil pushers whilst refusing pay rises to nurses. The MRSA crisis in itself needs no introduction. The use of PFI hospitals to make their expenditure look less, whilst it is massively more. The deliberate closure of hospitals in conservative areas to favour labour areas (which has affected me personally).

 

 

 

Iraq? Morals and heart? sorry to exaggerate but Hitler thought what he was doing was right, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. Dr David Kelly was another tragic victim of this prime minister.

 

 

 

My final grievance is his constant attack on the middle classes and their finances - inheritance tax continues to be a huge burden, with government's believing it is ok to take 40% of a person's belongings because they are no longer around to defend them. The massive taxes on the arts as well - my uncle recently bought a painting and is forced to pay 25% of its worth every year in tax, meaning every four years he buys the painting again, and again, and again. Justice is also falling to pieces, jails are full, judges are incompetent and not replaced or punished, gang culture, knife and gun crimes are all on the rise but don't worry! Fox hunting's banned! and all those inconvenient pensioners who can't afford to pay their council tax (which is by the way, rising hugely over the rate of inflation) because of their lack of pension and declining winter fuel payments are locked up safely where they can't hurt people with their walking sticks.

 

 

 

And finally the "hooman rights culture" that our illustrious leaders dear wife has brought upon us. Christian children not allowed to wear trinkets whilst other religions are allowed similar trinkets in state schools, political correctness making everyone afraid of offending anyone and the steady trickle of power away to Brussels.

 

 

 

So conclusion? Disappointment, a BIG one, the man even employs John Prescott, Jesus wept...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm, no. That may be the reason the US entered the war, but still. If they wanted to, they could've just done it all by themselves (though that would've been difficult), they didn't HAVE to ally themselves with Britain, but due to strategic benefits and previous alliances, they did anyway. It was beneficial to both, and in the end strengthened both nation's ties. So yeah, allies support each other.

 

 

 

'If they wanted to'? If they had wanted to they could have been helping Britain from even before the war. The neutrality acts of 1936 meant that America was in period of isolation from any allies they only allied to us because Germany declared war on them. They were not good allies if all they did was enter a war when their own interests were threatened. It is not like they cared for all the people dieing in Europe through Hitlers invasion of Russia or the Blitz on London.

 

 

 

Therefore what I was saying to Viktorkrum was that with Iraq we had no guilt or conscience when it came to the Iraq war because its not like America were good allies anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Blair as much as it's possible to like a politician.
Haha, I was talking to my mum about him yesterday evening and she said the exact same thing.

 

But it's true. He has done a very good job and I agree with the people that have said he was one of the best PMs ever.

 

 

 

The only problem with him, other than the Iraq war which goes without saying to most people (other than the ones that never shut up about it), was that he promised more than he could deliver however the media give him much too much stick. I mean, a TV program called 'The rise and fall of Tony Blair', there was no fall really.

 

 

 

I hate the media. :( :x

iteme3721.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not a bad guy, Bush just took him for a ride.

Signature3.gif

With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

saved the NHS? Poured money into managers, penny counters and pencil pushers whilst refusing pay rises to nurses. The MRSA crisis in itself needs no introduction. The use of PFI hospitals to make their expenditure look less, whilst it is massively more. The deliberate closure of hospitals in conservative areas to favour labour areas (which has affected me personally).

 

What MRSA crisis? You mean that bug that's been hugely exaggerated by the media is actually dying off? The NHS is in the best state it's ever been, and certainly a lot better than it was under the Tories. The idea that the NHS is in freefall is just false, and if there are any stresses on it, it's because of the expensive prices of new drugs and an aging population, not the actions of the government.

 

Iraq? Morals and heart? sorry to exaggerate but Hitler thought what he was doing was right, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. Dr David Kelly was another tragic victim of this prime minister.

 

Blair killed Kelly? Correct me if I'm wrong, but tragic as his death was, he committed suicide. He certainly wasn't a 'victim' of Blair. As for comparing Hitler to Blair... it's like comparing chalk and cheese. Blair went into Iraq because he believed (and yes, I think he genuinely did) that WMD were in Iraq, and to remove the Iraqi people from tyranny. Now, I don't agree with him, but I can't fault him for going to war on those criteria. If ever there is a 'good' reason to go to war, those are it. As for Hitler... well I'm not even going to go there, because like I said, comparing the two is pointlessly stupid.

 

My final grievance is his constant attack on the middle classes and their finances - inheritance tax continues to be a huge burden, with government's believing it is ok to take 40% of a person's belongings because they are no longer around to defend them. The massive taxes on the arts as well - my uncle recently bought a painting and is forced to pay 25% of its worth every year in tax, meaning every four years he buys the painting again, and again, and again. Justice is also falling to pieces, jails are full, judges are incompetent and not replaced or punished, gang culture, knife and gun crimes are all on the rise but don't worry! Fox hunting's banned! and all those inconvenient pensioners who can't afford to pay their council tax (which is by the way, rising hugely over the rate of inflation) because of their lack of pension and declining winter fuel payments are locked up safely where they can't hurt people with their walking sticks.

 

Again, believe what you like. Stats show crime is actually going down, and where stats show it's going up, there are enough staticians and police officers to say this is only because people report more crimes now. As for prisons, I'm not too hot on this issue, but I hear Gordon promises the construction of new prisons to deal with this problem. As for the pensioners, that's a weak argument. Not to mention ironic. People have never received as much benefits as they do now with New Labour, including pensioners. I find the issue usually with pensioners isn't that they can't afford to pay, it's that they refuse to. That's not the government's problem, they had their chance to control taxes during local elections. I'd also point out it makes them criminals...

 

 

 

As for the comment about taxing on the middle classes, I can't comment. I don't know anything about that, but if population votes a left-wing party into government, than expect higher taxes. It's basic left-wing ideology - more taxes, better public service.

 

And finally the "hooman rights culture" that our illustrious leaders dear wife has brought upon us. Christian children not allowed to wear trinkets whilst other religions are allowed similar trinkets in state schools, political correctness making everyone afraid of offending anyone and the steady trickle of power away to Brussels.

 

Correction... ALL races are asked to hide their religious icons in the workplace and in schools. It just happens to be the case that Christian symbolic trinkets can be hidden, while Sikh turbans can't (as was the case with that women at British Airways). If Christians are told to hide their trinkets while other races aren't (when they can be hidden), then yes, that's prejudism, but I've yet to come across such a case...

 

 

 

Ahh yes, "political correctness". What does this actually mean? Because I call it by a different name - "being tolerant of other people's values and traditions".

 

 

 

As for your comment about the EU, well I'll agree with you, but only because I see the EU as too much of a capitalist body for my liking, not because I feel we should have so much control over our own affairs. It's important to recognise the simliarites in our cultures over the differences, the EU achieves this. It's just I don't particularly like its capitalism-driven system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.