Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/29/07 05:57 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: A lot of people have said that if it weren't for the Iraq War, Blair may have been heralded as one of the greatest Prime Minister's of all time.

Unfortunately, though, you can't ignore that rather important factor. The Iraq War did happen, believe it or not.

The war in Iraq may have been very necessary, a result of not dealing with the issue on the many occasions that not just Britain and America, but the entire international community, had to deal with Saddam Hussein. However, the fact of the matter is that we were decieved by Blair's government in order to facilitate this war.

Oh, plus their thinking of not emptying my bins every week. You can wage a long and bloody war in the middle east at the cost of countless lives on all sides, but if you don't deal with my rubbish every monday, you're out!

I think he still is one of the greatest British Prime Ministers, I mean at the time everyone was all for Iraq, even the Conservatives did not oppose it. I mean there has been some very limited successes, such as the downfall of Sadam and the establishment of a democracy, but compared to his other foreign policies this was probably the worst. But I really don't think we should blame him, afterall he was doing what he thought was right, unlike other PM's who have made policies for the wrong and misguided reasons.

At 5/29/07 10:33 AM, Hashshashin wrote: But I really don't think we should blame him, afterall he was doing what he thought was right, unlike other PM's who have made policies for the wrong and misguided reasons.

With all respect, I disagree. I think you really can blame someone even they were just doing what they thought was right. You can't just irk responsability for a mistake by just saying "I did what I thought was right".

At 5/29/07 12:50 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

At 5/29/07 10:33 AM, Hashshashin wrote: But I really don't think we should blame him, afterall he was doing what he thought was right, unlike other PM's who have made policies for the wrong and misguided reasons.

With all respect, I disagree. I think you really can blame someone even they were just doing what they thought was right. You can't just irk responsability for a mistake by just saying "I did what I thought was right".

Yeah I know, but how great would it be to assasinate Alex Salmond just because "you thought it was right" ahh.
But still, I did think the Iraq War was totally justified, but again that is just my opinion.

i'm getting a bizarre euphoria from this news. Brown and Harman are better than Blair and Prescott, but I am thinking that it'll be that blue bastard Cameron in a few years anyway so fuck. i don't think we're going to be getting a good libertarian government that aims towards a functioning anarchy any time soon anyway.

At 6/24/07 05:12 PM, JesusBukkake wrote:

:i don't think we're going to be getting a good libertarian government that aims towards a functioning anarchy any time soon anyway.

And lets hope we never do!

His leaving presents have been arriving steadily of late:

From Gordon Brown and the British population, a fur cuff.
From the EU, a fork oeuf.
From the population of Iraq and Afghanistan, a tin of fur coffin dye.

At 5/13/07 01:38 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

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.

And us, the brothers of Christianity and good morals can spread the words of THE CHRIST to those heretical Muslim nations backwoods between the Yellow menace and the European shitheads.

Yaaayyy.... >_____________________________>

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.

Ooooooohhhh dont get me started on ww1 and 2
But you have. Oh well.
WW1
America waits untill it sees which side is likely to win. Deciding it is the tripple entente (British empire, France and russia) It decides to join them. Germany and the rest of them surrender because their economy collapses first, not because of the millitary might of the tripple entente and america. America joined ww1 and it was a stale mate, and continued to be a stale matin millitary terms untill germany surrenders. Most soldirs from the tripple Entente were from the BRITISH empire, from the uK, india and africa.

ww2
Before America joined the war, the Nazis had the UK out of europe, but could not invade because they could not gain air superiority over the UK, because the BRITISH RAF managed to beat off the Germans. No help from america here apart from a small insignificant amount of volenteers. (america is still not in the war, remember)
Another fact, the Germans could not invade, because their navy was not as powerfull as the BRITISH navy. Most of their battleships were either sunk or hold up in port by the BRITISH navy. A German admiral even said that had germany invaded, the british would have broken their invasion lanes within four hours.
Also who reached Berlin? The Russians. Who Obliterated most of the German army? the Russians. Who pushed the Germans back, unaided from 15 miles away from moscow, all the way to Berlin? The Russians. German troops in west europe by the time of D-day were not that numerous, as most of Germanys troops were fighting Russia. The Russians were already pushing the Nazis back through eastern europe by the time D-Day happened.
If America had not joined the war, the Russians would have easily knocked out the Nazis.
America just goes and gets all the credit for winning the war, even though more Brit troops died, and millions of russians gave their lives to defeat the Nazis. All America did was drop 2 bombs on japan that killed alot of people, just to intimidate russia who had done most of the fighting in ww2. yet somehow they get most of the credit. To me that is just sick.

At 5/29/07 05:57 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: A lot of people have said that if it weren't for the Iraq War, Blair may have been heralded as one of the greatest Prime Minister's of all time.

For what exactly? Continuing with policy decisions made my Thatcher and Major? Messing up the NHS by making it target orientated, and not person orientated? Devaluing the University degree by having a retarded target of getting the majority of people into uni on the false belief that it will somehow make everyone richer?

I'm sorry, but anyone who claims he's one of the greatest PM's ever is an idiot. That honour goes Winston Churchill, Gladstone and, though I'm loathe to admit it, Maggie Thatcher < shudder>

Anyway,

Blair's stepping down, Brown is in control. Prescott is leaving, Harman is taking over his duties...or lack of them.

Shockingly I heard news that one of the reforms Brown is considering is to make the office of the Prime Minister directly elected by the public, a la US president style.

Should be interesting to see what he does.

Here's hoping he isn't Tony Mark II.

Here's hoping he stops New Labours infatuation with the media and governs Britain properly instead of on a wave of popularist policies that are designed to grab headlines and nothing else.

Here's hoping that Ming Campbell stops acting like a retard and actually lets Paddy Ashdown sit in on Browns Cabinet...I can but hope :-(

At 6/25/07 02:09 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 5/29/07 05:57 AM, LegendaryLukus wrote: A lot of people have said that if it weren't for the Iraq War, Blair may have been heralded as one of the greatest Prime Minister's of all time.

For what exactly? Continuing with policy decisions made my Thatcher and Major? Messing up the NHS by making it target orientated, and not person orientated? Devaluing the University degree by having a retarded target of getting the majority of people into uni on the false belief that it will somehow make everyone richer?

I'm sorry, but anyone who claims he's one of the greatest PM's ever is an idiot. That honour goes Winston Churchill, Gladstone and, though I'm loathe to admit it, Maggie Thatcher < shudder>

I'm sorry, but did you actually read the whole of my post, or did just start spewing verbal diharea as soon as you read the first sentence?

Hang on....Thatcher, Major, Churchill.... this may just be my own intuition but....your a Tory aren't you?

At 6/25/07 03:27 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: I'm sorry, but did you actually read the whole of my post, or did just start spewing verbal diharea as soon as you read the first sentence?

I was just making a general statement as you bought up the subject of people considering him to be one of the greatest PM's ever.

Apologies if you thought I was attacking you, wasn't meant as such.

Hang on....Thatcher, Major, Churchill.... this may just be my own intuition but....your a Tory aren't you?

Actually I'm a paid up member of the Liberal Democrats.

At 6/25/07 03:50 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Actually I'm a paid up member of the Liberal Democrats.

May I ask, in all seriousness, what it is about the Lib Dems you agree with?

At 6/25/07 04:04 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote:

At 6/25/07 03:50 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Actually I'm a paid up member of the Liberal Democrats.

May I ask, in all seriousness, what it is about the Lib Dems you agree with?

They aren't the Tories or Labour.

And they support a federal system of Government for Britain and Proportional Representation both of which I agree with.

At 6/25/07 04:28 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: They aren't the Tories or Labour.

That always seems to be the answer. In my mind, the LIberal Democrats have become something of a protest vote in the eyes of many. Also, I find it ludicrous that a party who has such a large amount of student/young person support is run by, surely, one of the oldest people in Britain.

On a local level, the Lib Dems (or at least their appearance as a contender) have done a lot for my area - thus I vote for them in anything local. I just can't abide the party on the large-scale however. They are starting to stand not for their own policies, but whatever the other two don't stand for. They only reason they oppose Iraq is to gain support because they know they won't get into power for a long time, so they would never have to answer for that policy.

At 6/25/07 04:39 PM, LegendaryLukus wrote: That always seems to be the answer.

People are bored of the same two parties. They want something fresh I suppose...well...freshish.

In my mind, the Liberal Democrats have become something of a protest vote in the eyes of many. Also, I find it ludicrous that a party who has such a large amount of student/young person support is run by, surely, one of the oldest people in Britain.

Yeah, don't look at me. I wanted Mark Oaten to win...pity no one liked him and he slept with a rent boy. Ming Campbell is a crap leader. too old, too shit a politician, and an idiot.

He won't let Paddy Ashdown into Browns cabinet. Granted, its a shit position as Northern Ireland secretary, but at least its a Lib Dem in Government.

On a local level, the Lib Dems (or at least their appearance as a contender) have done a lot for my area - thus I vote for them in anything local. I just can't abide the party on the large-scale however. They are starting to stand not for their own policies, but whatever the other two don't stand for. They only reason they oppose Iraq is to gain support because they know they won't get into power for a long time, so they would never have to answer for that policy.

I disagree with your bit on Iraq there, I think, for the majority of the LIb Dems, it's not so much t gain support as a genuine dislike of invading a sovereign nation...cause lets face it :-) Us Liberals are sissies what with are touchy feeliy approaches to everything :P

I do agree that the Lib Dems are becoming a party of protest though. Unless they get someone in charge with some proper ideology and ideas about what they want to do, we're kind of fucked.

At 6/25/07 05:02 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: People are bored of the same two parties. They want something fresh I suppose...well...freshish.

Oh I couldn't agree more, I think people need to start seeing some politicians in power who wouldn't sell their own grandmother to stay in power.

He won't let Paddy Ashdown into Browns cabinet. Granted, its a shit position as Northern Ireland secretary, but at least its a Lib Dem in Government.

I think some politicians see party politics as all there is, there's no greater good in their eyes, just their own party in power is what matters.

I disagree with your bit on Iraq there, I think, for the majority of the LIb Dems, it's not so much t gain support as a genuine dislike of invading a sovereign nation...cause lets face it :-) Us Liberals are sissies what with are touchy feeliy approaches to everything :P

Lol, I suppose it does have a dove or something as its logo. I hate war, trust me, but I think its necessary sometimes. An unquestioning anti-war stance - it's too close to apathy for my taste. Although, the last time Liberals were in power, World War One started. Still, it 'might' be unfair to compare then and now.

I do agree that the Lib Dems are becoming a party of protest though. Unless they get someone in charge with some proper ideology and ideas about what they want to do, we're kind of fucked.

I think you're right, the Lib Dems need an actual leader, someone who will give the party somewhat of an identity. I would hope that the three main party system remains for as long as possible, but in my eyes the Lib Dems aren't going to become a contender in the near future.

you know it's kinda funny when you said tony blaire is no more i just picture this sort of 'wicked witch of the west' image of tony blaire being melted down by water.

YAY! THE WICKED WITCH IS NO MORE!

And now we have Mr Brown leading us.

well - it could work better than Blair.

Or god forbid....

David Cameron...

god i hate im.

You know when he made his final speech and everyone clapped, even the Tories, i kinda felt a little lump in my throat, vomit or sentiment im still not sure, but still Gordon Brown may be able to renew my faith in the Labour party.

At 6/27/07 02:02 PM, rottenmyscabies wrote: You know when he made his final speech and everyone clapped, even the Tories, i kinda felt a little lump in my throat, vomit or sentiment im still not sure

I know what you mean. I actually felt a bit sad for a moment at seeing him go. Then I got over it.

Brown needs to hurry p and name a cabinet...

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

Then why are you here, asshole?

Anyways, it's been well known for awhile now that Tony Blaire is stepping down.

Hope Gordon does a good job,
heard he's got temper
i'll go crazy if cameron takes over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

DAMN STRAIGHT.

God i hate him. His party is ripping itself apart, hes annoying as hell - he has no actual polices, bar make everything a damn sight worse...

Brown all ze way.

You have to love the timing:

Wednesday afternoon - Blair leaves Downing Street for the last time.
Thursday morning - Blair interviewed by police "as a witness" over Cash for Honours.

Wow, less than twelve hours before it happened! I was expecting it to be on Monday...

yep. even better is the timing of the bombs - and even better im in glasgow where two went off.

I have damn good timing dont i? If i dont come on here in the next month or so, assume ive been blown up by the terrorists.

"This day is fantastic..."

Sad news, Blair was one of the best and will be missed by millions. Good Day chap.

At 7/4/07 06:50 AM, Not2Somber wrote: Sad news, Blair was one of the best and will be missed by millions. Good Day chap.

No, really...

It seems if you don't correct errors at the start of an argument they begin to multiply in subsequent arguments.

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.

No it wouldn't mean a end to the "enormous political, economic, and military support". It could mean an end to the "enormous political, economic, and military support". It is more likely to lead to a worsening of the relationship between the countries, not the instant reneging on long-term agreements and mutually-beneficial arrangements. The UK, not being America's bitch, but a sovereign, technologically-advanced, economically-developed country can actually oppose US policy.

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.

Actually the staple of our economic wellbeing is our financial sector, known throughout the world as an easy way to avoid tax. It is also unlikely that the US could stop open access to US stock markets because the financial sector is the most integrated (read globalised) sector in the world and because there are many many rules regulating international financial trade.

And, as for everything that people have said about the end of the British nuclear deterrent (even though we have independent nuclear capabilities) and the relative weakness of our armed forces, if we weren't following the US into wars, why would we need a strong military? And what the fuck is the point of a nuclear deterrent? Which state is going to attack us?

Russia probably.

but oh i forgot... the U.S is building a missile sheild...

woooop. another chance for the U.S to claim they are the protectors of the free world...

:jeez..

And the ensuing hangover doesnt make you feel particualry good the following day...