I am watching CSPAN and they are showing a BBC round-table meeting between Blair, reporters, and concerned citizens. He answers their questions but a majority of the time is spent calling him the Vice President of the US, Vice President of the man from Texas North, or the US foreign minister. In fact they are openly disrespectful to him and dismiss anything he tries to say. This goes not only for the crowd but for the moderator. I understand he should be asked tough questions, but do you all not have any respect for the man? It just seems weird to me that people wish to disrespect him rather than debate. People are being assholes to him. I would have walked out and told them to suck eggs.
What the heck is wrong with you Brits?
- Thread starter Mill
- Start date
Well, Blair is an elected president, and thus responsible to the people, in theory. This means that if they wish to show him little respect, he must accept that.
The reason that he got so much stick in that meeting is because his position has become increasingly out of touch with that of his own party (whether or not it is out of touch with the british public is a far more difficult question). Labour has traditionally been anti-war, pro-disarmament, and pro-europe rather than pro-US (which would seem obvious, as Europe has much greater socialist tendancies than the US). Despite his reforms and modernisation of Labour (into the now almost middle aged "New Labour") the majority of its MPs and grass roots supporters are still, at heart, old labour.
(edit) sorry, I meant Blair is an elected Prime Minister. Freudian slip. my bad
The reason that he got so much stick in that meeting is because his position has become increasingly out of touch with that of his own party (whether or not it is out of touch with the british public is a far more difficult question). Labour has traditionally been anti-war, pro-disarmament, and pro-europe rather than pro-US (which would seem obvious, as Europe has much greater socialist tendancies than the US). Despite his reforms and modernisation of Labour (into the now almost middle aged "New Labour") the majority of its MPs and grass roots supporters are still, at heart, old labour.
(edit) sorry, I meant Blair is an elected Prime Minister. Freudian slip. my bad
You and I share the same sentiments.
A lot of the British public does not, I'm afraid and they do not like being seen as America's sidekick.
just look at the FT Site - the issues that are around are mainly concerned with the US/Iraq. We, as a public have obviously not made our mind up and many people feel Blair is just making the decision for them, and going a way that they dont want...
Hope you get what I mean
A lot of the British public does not, I'm afraid and they do not like being seen as America's sidekick.
just look at the FT Site - the issues that are around are mainly concerned with the US/Iraq. We, as a public have obviously not made our mind up and many people feel Blair is just making the decision for them, and going a way that they dont want...
Hope you get what I mean
Yes I get what you mean and I saw what you are both talking about. There is no doubt in my mind that a majority of the people in the UK do NOT want war without a second resolution(which is what was a topic of debate). The main sticking point it seemed to me was that people felt he would still go to war without the second resolution if it was vetoed by a member of the public council. That is a very valid concern and I understand that viewpoint. I respect that viewpoint and I respect the viewpoint of those who wish to wait for more evidence. I just could not stand the host of the show(Jeremy somebody) going out of his way to compare Blair to Bush's sidekick and if Blair bit back he acted serious and with much consternation towards Blair. It seemed as if it were a little lopsided and unfair to Blair.
Either way I just couldn't believe the disrespect he got on Public TV. It is one thing to see it on an internet forum, with your friends, or even at a protest. It just seemed that the deck was heavily stacked against him and every point he made was blown off.
Regardless, he has some tough critics with valid points to face and it will be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks.
Let me ask some of you this question: If Blair doesn't get the second resolution because it is vetoed, will you not support the war? Like Blair, I thought 1441 was fairly specific and it gave Saddam a clear idea of what he had to do.
The South African disarmament was a very interesting point coming from Blair because I had never thought of how much of a huge contrast there was with the inspections in Iraq and South Africa.
BTW Migroo thanks for the link to FT. Very interesting article right here outlining France's position.
Either way I just couldn't believe the disrespect he got on Public TV. It is one thing to see it on an internet forum, with your friends, or even at a protest. It just seemed that the deck was heavily stacked against him and every point he made was blown off.
Regardless, he has some tough critics with valid points to face and it will be interesting to see what happens in the next few weeks.
Let me ask some of you this question: If Blair doesn't get the second resolution because it is vetoed, will you not support the war? Like Blair, I thought 1441 was fairly specific and it gave Saddam a clear idea of what he had to do.
The South African disarmament was a very interesting point coming from Blair because I had never thought of how much of a huge contrast there was with the inspections in Iraq and South Africa.
BTW Migroo thanks for the link to FT. Very interesting article right here outlining France's position.
I'm afraid i didn't see the meeting, but heard a news item on it on the today show, as i cycled to work, so i missed his comparison to south africa. What exactly did he say?
By the way, calling a British PM an american lapdog (etc, etc) is not exactly new, nor is it confined to Blair. John Major was called much the same things for his unstinting support of the americans prior to the last Gulf war. In fact, if i did the research i'd probably find the same thing was true of *every* british PM. Except Thatcher... everyone know Reagan was *her* lapdog
By the way, calling a British PM an american lapdog (etc, etc) is not exactly new, nor is it confined to Blair. John Major was called much the same things for his unstinting support of the americans prior to the last Gulf war. In fact, if i did the research i'd probably find the same thing was true of *every* british PM. Except Thatcher... everyone know Reagan was *her* lapdog
He said that South Africa was given the chance to disarm and show where it kept its weapons of mass destruction. They allowed the inspectors in and allowed them to interview scientists alone and to immediately go anywhere they were pointed. He also said that in South Africa the government did not restrict access or make it hard for the inspectors to accomplish their job.
This was in response to how war could be prevented. Blair says the war is in the hands of Saddam. South Africa was able to comply and disarm, why should Saddam not do the same?
This was in response to how war could be prevented. Blair says the war is in the hands of Saddam. South Africa was able to comply and disarm, why should Saddam not do the same?
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 34,809
- 1,990
- 126
Well, I hope that the general English population doesn't hate America. You guys are our closest ally (tied with Canada). We're like brothers.
I guess that we forget that Blair has a responsibility to his people first and foremost, but I don't see just being outright disrespectful.
I guess that we forget that Blair has a responsibility to his people first and foremost, but I don't see just being outright disrespectful.
Millenium
Youre welcome for the link. Excuse the delay in replying - had to go and get the office lunch
Re: your question - I will support Blair's decision, whatever it is.
Thanks for the link to that article - an interesting read.
To be honest with so many countries its going to be difficult to get a unanimous vote. At one extreme you have the US closely followed by the UK, and at the other, you have France... In theory the UN's official line is probably going to match those of the countries between the extremes... IE: Dont go in with guns blazing, but dont do nothing.
Certainly a very difficult time, as there is no clear course of action.
I am following the news events closely but I dont know what to make of it without writing a 3000 word essay :/
Youre welcome for the link. Excuse the delay in replying - had to go and get the office lunch
Re: your question - I will support Blair's decision, whatever it is.
Thanks for the link to that article - an interesting read.
To be honest with so many countries its going to be difficult to get a unanimous vote. At one extreme you have the US closely followed by the UK, and at the other, you have France... In theory the UN's official line is probably going to match those of the countries between the extremes... IE: Dont go in with guns blazing, but dont do nothing.
Certainly a very difficult time, as there is no clear course of action.
I am following the news events closely but I dont know what to make of it without writing a 3000 word essay :/
I would also certainly hope that the population doesnt dislike America! Wonderful country and people
The thing is that a lot of people do not agree with the actions and stance of the US government. We are not used to being the world's policeman (as it were) and so 'going in there and kicking butt' is against our nature... hence the division.
Hope this makes sence.
No, very few people in europe hate America, we do not always agree with your foreign policy though....
There is a difference, having lived in the US for years i can honestly say that it is one of the few countries i would like to live in if i am forced out of Sweden...
The US is a great nation that has done very many great things throughout the years, no question about that, but that does not mean that everyone is going to jump because the US says jump...
I really REALLY dislike what the US is doing at the moment, France is no longer an ally because they refused to jump... Blair jumped and the people saw him jump, he appears to be a sock puppet who is going against the will of his own people, that is why he is being treated like one...
Chaotic42 - the British people certainly don't hate america. Far from it. Its true that they don't have the highest possible opinion of Bush (in general), but then, some of them don't have the highest possible opinion of Blair. I think that at the end of the day, when America goes to war Britain will follow. But right now many people are annoyed that Blair is not listening to their mood.
btw, don't think that the whole population is opposed to war, either. A large minority are for it. Of course, many of these we can discount as sentient beings because they read the Daily Mail...
Anyway, I can't keep up with following this thread and reading the articles (while i'm supposed to be at work. blah.) For those interested, the transcript of the newsnight interview is here
And Millenium, Jeremy Paxman is *always* like that!
I think that at the end of the day, when America goes to war Britain will follow. But right now many people are annoyed that Blair is not listening to their mood.btw, don't think that the whole population is opposed to war, either. A large minority are for it. Of course, many of these we can discount as sentient beings because they read the Daily Mail...
Anyway, I can't keep up with following this thread and reading the articles (while i'm supposed to be at work. blah.) For those interested, the transcript of the newsnight interview is here
And Millenium, Jeremy Paxman is *always* like that!
Chaotic42
Lifer
- Jun 15, 2001
- 34,809
- 1,990
- 126
See, I personally (and I can vouch for many Americans) have no idea about much of anything outside of our country. Sure, I know the capitols of many places, the leaders of quite a few, and can find all of them on a map, but I have no idea what it's like anywhere but here. I don't know what the people think, how they live, or anything like that.
I wouldn't want other countries to jump just because we say to, but it's disheartening to hear people say that we're just making stuff up.
The people in the world can see the difference between a war with Irak, the Bush administration, the country and the people...
The people in the world do not trust Bush, they do not understand why he is pushing sooo hard for this war when there is no immideate threat, in other words, no direct threat to anyone at this point... Then there was the evidence that Bush presented, expecting the UN to just believe it without considering that those aluminum cylinders were ordered with exact measurements and would have to be modified to be used in the uranium enrichment process... why would anyone order something with specific measurments and then modify them?
Then there has been numerous other occations, like the invented terrorist from canada, if you lie to often, sooner or later people will start to think about every word you say and if it is true, start claiming real hard evidence for everything you say.... that is what is happening right now...
That does NOT mean that anyone thinks that the US and the people who live there aren't great...
Therein lays the difference between the UK and USA, isn't it great that we have a country that instead of shouting "we have freedom of speech" like you Americans do, we REALLY do have freedom to say and act the way we feel, with no need to shout about it! We have the right to tell our prime minister he is wrong, and not just blindly accept what he says, unlike America, who blindy goes alon with everything your president says! Respect is earnt, not just freely given. Blair, Bush, any prime minister or president is simply a person, not a god or hero and over here if we think he is wrong, we don't just accept and walk away and bitch about it, we tell him to his face! TRUE democracy!!
In these pages I am often seeing people saying things like "oh Britain is nothing, we tell them what to do and they jump" and that is what was being said in the interview to Blair's face and the people were showing that they did not like it!! It was not an attack on the USA, much more the fact that everytime USA or Bush says something, Blair seems to blindly follow, and many British think this is dangerous and that we should make our own decisions, irrelevant of ANY other countries wish. People all over the world are angry that Bush seems hell-bent on rushing into war on what seems flimsy excuses and every time Bush says something, a couple of hours later, Blair repeats and that makes British people so mad at him!!
In that interview, Blair was NOT answering questions in a direct way and was side-stepping questions or being vague, the moderator or interviever as we call him, was not being anti anyone, he was trying to push Blair into a corner and make him answer the questions in a direct way. We the public voted him in and we the public deserve to know answers to any of our questions. Blair was not answering and so he was given a rough ride!! Plus there were obviously people who vote for other political parties there in the audience and they will automatically attack anything that they feel he says or does wrong!
Whereas in USA you seem in awe of a guy just because he is a president, over here we just see people for the way they are, just an elected guy who better do his or her job correcly and if not he or she will get booted out of office. People here are valued for what they do and what they acheive, not for some position they hold. However, at the end of the day, if a decision is taken to go to war (as if USA hasn't already decided) then Britain will come together as one nation and play our part in getting the job done.
Being blindly patriotic as so many seem to be on this sight, is a feature that demonstrates perfectly how you all let the wool be pulled over your eyes and follow your leader and not have the balls to tell him to his face, "You are wrong!!" and that is so dangerous! I like Blair and have nothing aainst USA, but even the best of friends sometimes do not agree or fall out at times, but it doesn't mean you hate them, just you are human! No, of course the Brits don't hate America!!
In these pages I am often seeing people saying things like "oh Britain is nothing, we tell them what to do and they jump" and that is what was being said in the interview to Blair's face and the people were showing that they did not like it!! It was not an attack on the USA, much more the fact that everytime USA or Bush says something, Blair seems to blindly follow, and many British think this is dangerous and that we should make our own decisions, irrelevant of ANY other countries wish. People all over the world are angry that Bush seems hell-bent on rushing into war on what seems flimsy excuses and every time Bush says something, a couple of hours later, Blair repeats and that makes British people so mad at him!!
In that interview, Blair was NOT answering questions in a direct way and was side-stepping questions or being vague, the moderator or interviever as we call him, was not being anti anyone, he was trying to push Blair into a corner and make him answer the questions in a direct way. We the public voted him in and we the public deserve to know answers to any of our questions. Blair was not answering and so he was given a rough ride!! Plus there were obviously people who vote for other political parties there in the audience and they will automatically attack anything that they feel he says or does wrong!
Whereas in USA you seem in awe of a guy just because he is a president, over here we just see people for the way they are, just an elected guy who better do his or her job correcly and if not he or she will get booted out of office. People here are valued for what they do and what they acheive, not for some position they hold. However, at the end of the day, if a decision is taken to go to war (as if USA hasn't already decided) then Britain will come together as one nation and play our part in getting the job done.
Being blindly patriotic as so many seem to be on this sight, is a feature that demonstrates perfectly how you all let the wool be pulled over your eyes and follow your leader and not have the balls to tell him to his face, "You are wrong!!" and that is so dangerous! I like Blair and have nothing aainst USA, but even the best of friends sometimes do not agree or fall out at times, but it doesn't mean you hate them, just you are human! No, of course the Brits don't hate America!!
You know, I was really enjoying this thread until Czar had to piss in the well.
I would like to see some more thoughtful political discussions with some of the more enlightened European users on this BBS, albeit without the name calling.
We just might learn something.
I would like to see some more thoughtful political discussions with some of the more enlightened European users on this BBS, albeit without the name calling.
We just might learn something.
Originally posted by: Jimbo
You know, I was really enjoying this thread until Czar had to piss in the well.
I would like to see some more thoughtful political discussions with some of the more enlightened European users on this BBS, albeit without the name calling.
We just might learn something.
Yes, Czar confused you with facts, i understand that you aren't used to that...
Want to know why it is related?Originally posted by: Jimbo
You know, I was really enjoying this thread until Czar had to piss in the well.
I would like to see some more thoughtful political discussions with some of the more enlightened European users on this BBS, albeit without the name calling.
We just might learn something.
Blair is trying to decieve the public and the public saw through it, thats why they are angry. And that is why it is related.
But I do agree with you, the name calling is getting out of hand, has been for well over a year.
I read back over the interview to see the part of North Korea and it was an audience member and not Blair that made the comparison to South Africa.
I am not in awe of our president nor do I blindly follow. I am not saying you are accusing me of that, but I wanted to make sure that you understood that before I kept talking. I definitely see where you are coming from in the respect that you feel Blair is blindly following Bush. Let me ask you this one question though. If Bush was right and Blair saw intelligence to confirm this why would he not follow? If George Bush was telling the truth and all the information he gave was verified by UK intelligence why would Blair not follow? Now of course, the information could be wrong, but I haven't seen anyone with evidence that it is yet(other than the "cut and paste" document that has gotten so much press from the anti-war crowd).
So we reach a point in which we have evidence and we wish to pursue a new resolution. If that resolution passes it seems a majority of the UK would be willing to support Blair. Without it, it seems the majority does not want war. Now is that because they feel without a resolution they would be following the US into a war blindly or because they have that much faith in the UN to do the proper thing(even if it was vetoed by someone such as China or Russia)?
You will have to answer that for me because I do not live in the UK and I am not fully aware of where the anti-war sentiment comes from.
I'm so sorry snap-it, you were doing so well there for a moment.
And on that note I shall once again dismiss your opinion as irrelevant.
Please continue on about such deep philosophies that a mere American could not even begin to understand and why we don't listen to your point of view on most things.
EDIT: I did read the BBC article. If those three sections had been the entire report, you may have something, but you don't. If I remember correctly there was considerable more to the report than that, but you disagree with the conclusion and want to paint the entire thing as just another American lie.
And you have the balls to call American media biased?
And on that note I shall once again dismiss your opinion as irrelevant.
Please continue on about such deep philosophies that a mere American could not even begin to understand and why we don't listen to your point of view on most things.
EDIT: I did read the BBC article. If those three sections had been the entire report, you may have something, but you don't. If I remember correctly there was considerable more to the report than that, but you disagree with the conclusion and want to paint the entire thing as just another American lie.
And you have the balls to call American media biased?
Originally posted by: Czar
Want to know why it is related?Originally posted by: Jimbo
You know, I was really enjoying this thread until Czar had to piss in the well.
I would like to see some more thoughtful political discussions with some of the more enlightened European users on this BBS, albeit without the name calling.
We just might learn something.
Blair is trying to decieve the public and the public saw through it, thats why they are angry. And that is why it is related.
But I do agree with you, the name calling is getting out of hand, has been for well over a year.
Wait wait wait. How do you get the idea that he was trying to deceive the public because his report was written using information that they were not a first party to. Hell the guy himself said if they went back and quoted him that he had no problem with it.
Reports like this typically will have information and research from a variety of sources and sometimes it is not credited(although it should be). The only real troubling aspect I saw of it was that a report stated that the numbers listed were done so to give a heavy favor to the UK position. Now if that can be proven to be true it is troubling. It still doesn't mean Blair deceived anyone because how can you believe he knew whether or not the numbers were accurate and we still haven't had any proof that they were inaccurate or replaced with NEW DATA!
I don't live in the UK either, but i think it is safe to say that the rest of the world has more faith in the UN than the US does...
But if a second resolution is not passed doesn't that undermine the UN a good bit? I mean they told Saddam to disarm, passed resolutions, said he would have consequences, etc. Now if nothing is done it makes the UN look like it has no authority or power to make a country follow its resolution! I would like to see how someone thinks this would not undermine the UN.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter