Blair Is No More!

[Squigley]

Tony Blair - The UK's Prime Minister, is stepping down.

Perhaps, this means a change in the politics of the war on terror?

who knows? because its likely that the leadership of the Uk will be taken over by David Cameron (bassically a posh tool), all combat involving the british army in the middle-east may cease.

opinions?

(even if youre not from the English isles)

[xwolf53]

Politics is gay, everyone knows that

[SmilezRoyale]

At 5/13/07 01:35 PM, xwolf53 wrote: Politics is gay, everyone knows that

^^^^

ignore him

now that tony blaire is gone we can focus more on helping to spread the word of islam to the troubled western nations.

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 5/13/07 12:59 PM, Squigley wrote: who knows? because its likely that the leadership of the Uk will be taken over by David Cameron (bassically a posh tool), all combat involving the british army in the middle-east may cease.

Cameron won't be taking over any time soon. Gordon Brown will be the next PM as he is almost certain to win the Labour leadership contest.

[gijfef]

yeah i hope i never see david cameron as prime minister- hes such a posh toff and realy fake! i mean wen he smiles u can tell he dont mean it.

[D2Kvirus]

Well, we do have 6 1/2 weeks of him announcing his resignation...

But, for when the terrible plague of TB that's afflicted the nation for a decade is to be erradicated on June 27th, and for that great day, the bubbly's on ice.

No, wait, Blair isn't worth the price of a bottle of champaign. Make that a bottle of Lambrini.

No, wait, that's what First Year Film & Lit girl students drink.

RIGHT!

Make it a bottle of sparkling dessert wine from the nearest supermarket, then

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 5/13/07 02:31 PM, gijfef wrote: yeah i hope i never see david cameron as prime minister- hes such a posh toff and realy fake! i mean wen he smiles u can tell he dont mean it.

And this is different to every other politician how?

[SuperKooter]

At 5/13/07 12:59 PM, Squigley wrote: Tony Blair - The UK's Prime Minister, is stepping down.

Perhaps, this means a change in the politics of the war on terror?

who knows? because its likely that the leadership of the Uk will be taken over by David Cameron (bassically a posh tool), all combat involving the british army in the middle-east may cease.

opinions?

(even if youre not from the English isles)

Good riddance another pro-bush, pro-iraqnam idiot is ousted. Maybe you britts can get a leader who won't just go along with everything bush does.

[Hashshashin]

At 5/13/07 12:59 PM, Squigley wrote:

who knows? because its likely that the leadership of the Uk will be taken over by David Cameron (bassically a posh tool), all combat involving the british army in the middle-east may cease.

Haha, it's almost as if your suggesting David Cameron is in the Labour party and is running for the leadership, fool.

And yes he may be posh, but he certainly isn't a tool. You just think that since he is posh you are stereotypically indoctrinated into thinking he is going to be stuck up, snobby and only giving a shit about the middle class.

Hmm it's unlikely that British soldiers will be withdrawn from Iraq, afterall the Tories did not oppose going to war.

[Korriken]

Blair steps down, and the new PM declares war on america to drive them out of Iraq, then they topple the new iraq government and hands it over to iran.

now THAT would be ironic.

[JakeHero]

At 5/13/07 05:22 PM, SuperKooter wrote: Good riddance, hopefully a pro-clinton, pro-somolian idiot gets into power. Maybe you britts can get a leader who will just go along with everything liberals demand.

Fixed your post or at least what you're hoping for.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/13/07 05:22 PM, SuperKooter wrote: Good riddance another pro-bush, pro-iraqnam idiot is ousted. Maybe you britts can get a leader who won't just go along with everything bush does.

The UK is way too dependent on the US to ever do that. If a British leader would openly oppose the US in actual policy rather than pure rhetoric, then they would be very stupid because that would mean the end of the enormous political, economic, and military support the US gives the UK that is vital to their country.

The Brits would have to say goodbye to their nuclear deterrent, say goodbye to their relative military proficiency, say goodbye to their open access to US stock markets and financial systems etc... that is a staple of their economic wellbeing.

[Korriken]

At 5/14/07 12:07 AM, JakeHero wrote:

At 5/13/07 05:22 PM, SuperKooter wrote: Good riddance, hopefully a pro-clinton, pro-somolian idiot gets into power. Maybe you britts can get a leader who will just go along with everything liberals demand.

Fixed your post or at least what you're hoping for.

quoted for the abundant amount of truth contained within. just what the UK needs, an overly liberal PM to further screw the nation over. when the new PM takes office, knees will jerk, stuff will get banned, and taxes will be raised.

[LadyGrace]

Sorry, I'm a bit out of the loop and ignorant when it comes to British politics. But what were his reasons to resign? Did the British population really dislike him that much? Is there a general chain of command that follows after resignation? And, how long would it have been until he was up for re-election? A long time hence the resignation? Or just a short while, so that the country isn't left in a sort of turmoil?

[Squigley]

At 5/13/07 08:09 PM, Hashshashin wrote:

At 5/13/07 12:59 PM, Squigley wrote:

who knows? because its likely that the leadership of the Uk will be taken over by David Cameron (bassically a posh tool), all combat involving the british army in the middle-east may cease.

Haha, it's almost as if your suggesting David Cameron is in the Labour party and is running for the leadership, fool.

And yes he may be posh, but he certainly isn't a tool. You just think that since he is posh you are stereotypically indoctrinated into thinking he is going to be stuck up, snobby and only giving a shit about the middle class.

hmm - i have my resons, (hug a hoody for example..)
However - The tories are alot more popular than Labour in the local elections...
If Cameron ends up in control, its gonna end up like france... god forbid.

Hmm it's unlikely that British soldiers will be withdrawn from Iraq, afterall the Tories did not oppose going to war.

and from what ives seen of the greasy bugger, id say that he really doesnt want to keep in iraq. Either way, we end up with tools.

[Squigley]

At 5/14/07 03:22 AM, LadyGrace wrote: Sorry, I'm a bit out of the loop and ignorant when it comes to British politics. But what were his reasons to resign? Did the British population really dislike him that much? Is there a general chain of command that follows after resignation? And, how long would it have been until he was up for re-election? A long time hence the resignation? Or just a short while, so that the country isn't left in a sort of turmoil?

Bassically, hes been in power too long. 10 years in fact. so hes steping down. he wont be the PM again.

And its mainly cos of stuff like the "|Cash For Honours" scam, and the Iraq war.

[Squigley]

At 5/14/07 12:17 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 5/13/07 05:22 PM, SuperKooter wrote: Good riddance another pro-bush, pro-iraqnam idiot is ousted. Maybe you britts can get a leader who won't just go along with everything bush does.

The UK is way too dependent on the US to ever do that. If a British leader would openly oppose the US in actual policy rather than pure rhetoric, then they would be very stupid because that would mean the end of the enormous political, economic, and military support the US gives the UK that is vital to their country.

The Brits would have to say goodbye to their nuclear deterrent, say goodbye to their relative military proficiency, say goodbye to their open access to US stock markets and financial systems etc... that is a staple of their economic wellbeing.

Now... you sound like a bit of a tool.

We ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON YOU. Your military power stems from numbers. The training the US Army gives its troops, is half of the british training time.

and example of this, is a little story which made me laugh anyway..

A group of Delta force (special forces), came under attack from taliban militatns in afghanistan. Luckily, a small squad of British Marines (10 men), were in the area and rescued them.

Now that... proves that the us is not the most powerful Army in the world.

Perhaps we do relie on the US for the stock market etc...

But not military might.

[Hashshashin]

At 5/14/07 06:15 AM, Squigley wrote:

A group of Delta force (special forces), came under attack from taliban militatns in afghanistan. Luckily, a small squad of British Marines (10 men), were in the area and rescued them.

Now that... proves that the us is not the most powerful Army in the world.

I don't think that tiny little fact can prove such a major point that the US has not got the most powerful army in the world.

Anyhoo, Britain can manage without the US, It's economy was fine before it joined forces with America, and is still the same today. There's hardly any change.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/14/07 06:15 AM, Squigley wrote:

Now that... proves that the us is not the most powerful Army in the world.

That's an isolated incident...you might as well pick out the times that the United States has helped the UK....Oh, right, never mind...two world wars.

FTW.

Perhaps we do relie on the US for the stock market etc...

You reLY on the US for more than you think. We're a big importer of UK products.

But not military might.

WWI and WWII.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 5/14/07 03:08 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 5/14/07 06:15 AM, Squigley wrote:

Now that... proves that the us is not the most powerful Army in the world.

That's an isolated incident...you might as well pick out the times that the United States has helped the UK....Oh, right, never mind...two world wars.

FTW.

Perhaps we do relie on the US for the stock market etc...

You reLY on the US for more than you think. We're a big importer of UK products.

But not military might.

WWI and WWII.

Compairing the strength of an army has many factors:

- The armies Fear factor [Not as prominent now as it was in ancient times]
- the skill of the generals
- the technology used by the armies
- Quantities [Soldiers, weapons, etc. etc.]
- the engagement rules that the army goes by [the less rules it follows the easier it is to complete a mission, it's just a fact]
- and of course, the skill and training of the troops, as well as dicipline [please note that an army can be barbaric and diciplined at the same time [Ex: the mongols, highly diciplined horsemen but were savage towards enemies, making them very sucessfull killers]

if anyone even bothers to quote me, or mention this post, or any other post i made, i'll hug them.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 5/14/07 03:35 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

- The armies Fear factor

The British army **really** scares me...

- the skill of the generals

Wouldn't you suggest that unit commanders have more relevance? Generals only formulate policy.

- the technology used by the armies

US > or = British

- Quantities [Soldiers, weapons, etc. etc.]

US >>>>> British in terms of quantity

- the engagement rules that the army goes by [the less rules it follows the easier it is to complete a mission, it's just a fact]

They're probably about equivalent in the WoT.

- and of course, the skill and training of the troops, as well as dicipline

Skill and training isn't something I would be knowledgeable about.

[Brick-top]

At 5/13/07 12:59 PM, Squigley wrote: Tony Blair - The UK's Prime Minister, is stepping down.

I've been saving this for the day :)

Tony is a fucking twat!

[emmytee]

At 5/14/07 12:17 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
The Brits would have to say goodbye to their nuclear deterrent, say goodbye to their relative military proficiency.

I know you love to go on about dependence and all that, but we have our own nukes and we would in no way lose them if Gordon brown told bush to suck it. We have guns, tanks and aircraft as well as equally proficient soldiers / pilots . Sure, many of the aircraft are American made and maybe the nukes are (no idea), but you seem to be operating on the retarded idea that we would give your shit back if we fell out, and also that we wouldn't just make our own/buy our own thereafter.

[cellardoor6]

At 5/14/07 06:15 AM, Squigley wrote:

At 5/14/07 12:17 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: The UK is way too dependent on the US to ever do that. If a British leader would openly oppose the US in actual policy rather than pure rhetoric, then they would be very stupid because that would mean the end of the enormous political, economic, and military support the US gives the UK that is vital to their country.

Now... you sound like a bit of a tool.

I speak the truth.

We ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON YOU.

Yeah you are (read the whole thing). Basically your country's entire military posture revolves around the assistance you get from the US. Your entire military is organized in order to be COMMANDED by the US military in time of war, and basically all the technology you use is provided by the US.

Your country needs the US to operate militarily. You need access to US military satellites for GPS (your country lacks this). Your country needs US logistical power in order to supply your forces, you need US technological know-how to maintain your airforce, your nuclear arsenal, your naval fleet etc..

That is a FACT, not an opinion. But of course you were unaware of that because you Brits tend to be very delusional.

Your military power stems from numbers. The training the US Army gives its troops, is half of the british training time.

Actually US military power stems from superiority in every single aspect, technology, training, logistical power, agility, high-coordination etc... Size means nothing in modern warfare. Anyhow, it is another myth conjured up by Brits that the US military training isn't as extensive as the British. That's not true. The only reason you think that is because you stupid Brits keep comparing your special forces to our REGULAR infantry. When both of our Special Forces are pretty much identical in training, except the US has about 10 times as many special forces as you, in every branch of our military.

and example of this, is a little story which made me laugh anyway..

Even if that story is true, that doesn't matter because there have been MANY times where US forces are needed to save the ass of British forces, that happened multiple times in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention WWI and WWII). In fact, the British military has such little force projection, so little heavy power, and so little logistical proficiency, they need the US to transport them, supply them, give them air support, and to give them access to intelligence that is gathered by US special forces and US satellite/air/ground surveillance.

Anyway, that story of yours was almost as funny as how during both the Gulf War and the Invasion of Iraq, all British troops were under US command because your country lacks the capability to operate a large-scale ground war. Brits can't even fight a land battle without the US providing overwatch, air support, logistical support, and actually commanding the whole thing.

Now that... proves that the us is not the most powerful Army in the world.

Um actually it proves nothing. The US is the worlds most powerful military, anyone who suggests otherwise is obviously jealous or stupid (which are you? probably both).

At 5/14/07 05:09 PM, emmytee wrote:

At 5/14/07 12:17 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
The Brits would have to say goodbye to their nuclear deterrent, say goodbye to their relative military proficiency.

I know you love to go on about dependence and all that, but we have our own nukes and we would in no way lose them if Gordon brown told bush to suck it.

Actually you don't have your own nukes. The Nukes you have are provided by the US, the delivery systems are provided, maintained, and in some cases controlled by the US. The warheads you use are made by the US with American technology and know-how.

Even your parliament specifically states that the British nuclear force, submarines, missiles, and other delivery vehicles are entirely dependent on the US. Also, that the British nuclear deterrent would in trouble if the US decided to no longer assist you:

The potential disadvantage of the UK decision to forego independence of acquisition is that "if, over a very long period, we became deeply estranged from the Americans and they decide to rat on their agreements, we would be in… great difficulty".

We have guns, tanks and aircraft as well as equally proficient soldiers / pilots .

Many of which are supplied in and based upon American technology/tactics.

Sure, many of the aircraft are American made and maybe the nukes are (no idea)

You're proving you're not really educated enough in the matter to come to an independent conclusion. War isn't just about hardware, it's about a broad range of capabilities. Your country's military has been organized to take advantage of its cooperation with the US. High-end technology in communications, propulsion, stealth, surveillance, navigation etc... is almost all pioneered in the US and provided by the US to your country. Even what you THINK is British-made military equipment is still founded upon American-provided technology.

Your country has no military satellites for navigation and GPS-guided weaponry, your country has no stealth technology (except for that which were are sharing with you in the F-35 program), your country has no independent nuke force, no long-range bombers, a very small air force, and little to no force projection. Your country has an entire military that is smaller and less advanced than just the US Marine Corps alone which itself has land, air, and sea capability. The Marine Corps, in turn isn't as advanced as the US Army, US Airforce, or even its US Navy hivemind.

but you seem to be operating on the retarded idea that we would give your shit back if we fell out, and also that we wouldn't just make our own/buy our own thereafter.

You seem to be perpetuating the myth that you Brits somehow aren't dependent on the US, despite the cold, hard facts of the matter.

[JakeHero]

Why can't Europeans admit that without the US they'd have their thumbs up their ass?

[Incognitus]

He announced he was stepping down months ago...

"Why can't Europeans admit that without the US they'd have their thumbs up their ass?"

The US has no influence on European politics, so that's a load of bollocks.

[Incognitus]

Yeah, MickTheChampion is right. A hell of a lot of Americans are descended from Germans, for example.

[HighlyIllogical]

The fact that most Americans are descended from Europeans holds no quarrel with me. It's unavoidably true, but the rest of the West depends on the United States, anyway.

[Squigley]

At 5/14/07 03:08 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 5/14/07 06:15 AM, Squigley wrote:

Now that... proves that the us is not the most powerful Army in the world.

That's an isolated incident...you might as well pick out the times that the United States has helped the UK....Oh, right, never mind...two world wars.

FTW.

Perhaps we do relie on the US for the stock market etc...

You reLY on the US for more than you think. We're a big importer of UK products.

But not military might.

WWI and WWII.

Now... i seems to forget... but your army lost the most men during D-day...?

and plus.. you generally only helped when you relised you couldnt keep out of the war.

[LegendaryLukus]

At 5/15/07 03:31 PM, Squigley wrote: Now... i seems to forget... but your army lost the most men during D-day...?

and plus.. you generally only helped when you relised you couldnt keep out of the war.

Don't take this the wrong way, but why would you butcher history like this! I'm not arguing against you, but please don't say something like this if you're not sure of the facts. Of course the US lost the most men during D-day, they were the biggest force by far participating in the battle which was, by the way, a complete success.

I'm not sure how a discussion about Blair ended up talking about WWII, but....oh wait....all discussions do.