Scumbag Blair's gifts to his children

Damaged

Exocet wrote: »

And in some ways I agree. However in Blairs case I will make an exception.

This man has preached to the Nation for getting on for twenty years now, he has taken the old fashioned ideas of working class Labour and turned them on their head. He has on numerous occasions, not just Iraq, been found wanting in terms of moral decency.

I can understand why the term Ugly might be used. It doesn't have to refer to the outer prettiness of the subject but the inner decay and rotting stench of hypocrisy on the inside. (copyright Amcluesent)

Cleaver, I could write for hours on Blair, and the disappointment he embodies. I think for every pound he has made he should donate a third to the Middle East, a third to the working class of Britain and a third to the Labour party.

The man is apparently a devout something or other! It just goes to show that real Christians don't need the capital letter.

I'll stop now.

Disgusted, of MSE.

yet the country voted him in, and nearly the same party that he lead recently.

Get a grip, he did the best he could and thought of at the time. It is easy to look back and judge. I am not defending the guy, he made mistakes, but he is human and he had our best intentions at heart.

Procrastinator333

leveller2911 wrote: »

The main reason by far that Iraq was invaded was for OIL end of .When all said and done it boils down to money, dirty ,filthy business war....

I think Bush may have been more motivated by oil, so what, if I was in the position to get America to use it's miltary to remove such a person as Saddam I would take it.

Regarding Zimbabwe - To state with such certainty that losses would have been less if we had invaded Zimbabwe is simply a guess. Not a lot of point in debating it as I don't think either of us have sufficient knowledge or resources to provide a likely casualty scenario for the invasion of Zimbabwe.

Many islamic countries did oppose the removal of Saddam, but I believe that was more out of a fear of instability than because of a belief in Saddam himself.

Damaged

leveller2911 wrote: »

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

My views are quite simple,either we do the job properly with NO exceptions or we understand that we are now a small Island Nation and act like one.

You seem happy to advocate going around the world being a lacky to the US and its policies rather than doing the right thing wherever and whoever the despot is.Playing God

I am angry when we are not consistant, picking and choosing is wrong.We won't kick the !!!!!! out of North Korea because they can fight back but we will invade Iraq because theirs only the National Guard thats can supposedly fight.The hypocracy of it has no bounds.

Why don't we invade Burma? I mean Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house arrest in Burma , thousands have dissapeared,despot regime but no invasion to free the masses, why?......Again my answer is money, they arent oil rich...

why would we want to waste our time invading Burma

Iraq has the Oil, and that is what we need

End off

Procrastinator333

leveller2911 wrote: »

My views are quite simple,either we do the job properly with NO exceptions or we understand that we are now a small Island Nation and act like one.

You seem happy to advocate going around the world being a lacky to the US and its policies rather than doing the right thing wherever and whoever the despot is.Playing God

I am angry when we are not consistant, picking and choosing is wrong.We won't kick the !!!!!! out of North Korea because they can fight back but we will invade Iraq because theirs only the National Guard thats can supposedly fight.The hypocracy of it has no bounds.

Why don't we invade Burma? I mean Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house arrest in Burma , thousands have dissapeared,despot regime but no invasion to free the masses, why?......Again my answer is money, they arent oil rich...

The stand back from the world approach is fair enough, there is a strong case for it. I respect that opinion, I really do. I just disagree. For me, I simplify it. If I saw someone being beaten in the street, I would try and help, or if there were more of them I would seek to get help to stop it. If I would make that choice, why would I stand by and do nothing just because it happens over a border?

It complicates things and in many instances it requires more thought, multiple approaches and almost always the support of others, but for me the principle is the same.

Where did I say we should be a lacky to the US? I personally see it as manipulating the US to my own ends.

You are right we don't invade North Korea becasue they can fight back. They can and likely would place a nuclear bomb in to Seoul. That is not really an option is it? That means other options need to be explored. Do what you can to soften the ground for any sort of pro democratic elements in North Korea. Try and influence the Chinese (the only ones with any real lever on North Korea) to pressure North Korea. The world is not black and white.

This is just my opinion. Plenty other perfectly valid views out there. I know I speak from a posiiton of ignorance - I don't really have much in the way of geo-political understanding, I have no loved one in the armed forces and I'm not as up to date on world events as many.

I just come back to my example. I would help someone right in front of me, so why wouldn't I help just becasue they are in another country? Though the form of that help would differ.

Anyway, starting to go round in circles and quite a bit of tangent, so will try to leave it there.

Procrastinator333

leveller2911 wrote: »

My views are quite simple,either we do the job properly with NO exceptions or we understand that we are now a small Island Nation and act like one.

You seem happy to advocate going around the world being a lacky to the US and its policies rather than doing the right thing wherever and whoever the despot is.Playing God

I am angry when we are not consistant, picking and choosing is wrong.We won't kick the !!!!!! out of North Korea because they can fight back but we will invade Iraq because theirs only the National Guard thats can supposedly fight.The hypocracy of it has no bounds.

Why don't we invade Burma? I mean Aung San Suu Kyi is still under house arrest in Burma , thousands have dissapeared,despot regime but no invasion to free the masses, why?......Again my answer is money, they arent oil rich...

P.S You appear to have accidently left both bold and underline on in your last few posts.

SingleSue

It's his money and it is up to him how he spends it...no matter how he earned the money in the first place.

The job of PM is incredibly stressful, you literally hold the future of so many people in your hands....it is not one I would want to do!

Some people have money, some don't, some people want to treat their children, some don't, some want to help their children, some can't or won't.

It's life.

N.B. I am an avid anti labour supporter and never liked the man!

Damaged

Malcolm. wrote: »

IMHO Blair lied about weapons of mass destruction in order to support Bush fight an illegal war.

His children are gifted million pound properties.

Other peoples children come home in body bags.

It is not right.

Lots of things are not right, yet they happen, lax drinking laws kill people on our roads yet this is ok to most people.

The war may have been illegal, but it was for our benefit.

silvercar

Did no-one tell him a crash was coming? Better to have held off and pay less in a year's time.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

Slimeball Blair and his multi-million pound gifts to his ugly spoilt brats:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306879/Blairs-buy-1m-London-townhouse-cash-daughter-22.html

This man really has no decency. Most young people have to scrimp and save to raise a deposit on a hovel while Blair's kids have million pound houses given to them on a plate. This from a man who has the blood of thousands on his hands. Beyond belief!

Poor old marklv. He simply hates it that other people are more successful than him. His posts ooze bitterness and resentment that his life hasn't turned out as well as he wanted.

God knows, I'm no fan of Tony Blair but what he does with his money is completely up to him.

StevieJ

leveller2911 wrote: »

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

On the whole Iraq debate. I was in favour of removing Saddam.

Saddam and his government were a brutal and oppresive regime. Despicable. Nothing less. I didn't really care if there were WMD, it was a good excuse to get rid of a bad person.

I agree he was despicable, but why did they/we stop at him?. Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe,Charles Taylor and others are/were just as bad.Where do we/they draw the line?, at what point do we/they go in all guns blazing.

What gives us/them the right to be the worlds Police?, what makes us right?

Oil is why it stopped at him, the plus was that greed and justice for once cohabited.