Oh Blair, Blair!!

[Reginald]

Why does this guy keep on taking audiences completely made up of people who are already mind-set against military action.

He's shooting himself in the foot, we have on TV this morning (repeated continuously) the last 5 seconds of last nights "Blair meets the anti-war ladies" where 3 of the women slow hand clap him.

No one has pointed out that the audience were selected because of their views, they have used phrases such as "Blair faced another hostile audience last night". Not making it at all clear that the audience were chosen to be hostile before he turned up.

What happened to ballance? I admit that in truth if you wanted a representative audience you would only have 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 pro war people in there, but this kind of thing, to me is just as ridiculous as preaching to the converted.

I'm frankly not at all supprised that support is still on the decline.







:rolleyes:

[corplinx]

Unless Saddam starts killing white people, I don't see things changing.

[crocodile deathroll]

Our resident "ass licker" in Oz the Prime Minister Jonny Howard is now just waiting for his phone call from his old pal GWB.
Little Jonny was in Washington at the time of the of the whole 9-11 episode and has been extremely carried away ever since and ever since he has complied uncritically to GWB to the extent of committing our troops over there before a vote went to parliament.

He claims it is possible to pull the troops out if it does not get a mandate from the UN, but he has already give he word to GWB as one of the alliance of the willing. So now he is just waiting for that phone call from the White House.
And when GWB tells him to jump Jonny will simply reply "how high???"

[Reginald]

I dont see Blair as an ars* licker at all. I see him as a man who is supporting an alliance that has stood for a long time.

The UK didn't stand there with it's hand out waiting to see what we could get out of this alliance financially, we were there at the offset. I take pride in that fact.

However I think he has lost the debate on the issue.

That, in MHO is a shame, because the poeple of Iraq (The reason I see for any action) are still going to be suffering.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Reginald

However I think he has lost the debate on the issue.



I must recognise that Blair has a lot of courage to face the anti-war audience and their criticism.

Without the resolution, he is politically dead and he knows that. So, why does he continue supporting the war?

[Reginald]

Having said that he has still managed to get the percentage of the populus willing to go without a second (that should actually be 18th!!!) resolution up from 11% to 19%, however I feel that could have been a lot more had the case been put correctly.

[Lothian]

Reg,

To clarify your original statement.

Blair asked ITV for a hostile audience as opposed to ITV providing one. He clearly wants to be seen winning over the doubters.

His problem is that people see him driven by Bush and his opinion rather than by any threat to the UK.

Bush made clear that he doesn’t give a damn about UN opinion and will act to ‘save’ America.

Blair has therefore got to convince the public that not only are we under direct threat from Saddam but that we are also better dumping on the rest of the world for the sake of our ‘special relationship” with America.

He is losing that battle not only with the public but within his own party, where according to reports (radio 5 live) this morning a leadership coup is planned.

Originally posted by Reginald
[B]I dont see Blair as an ars* licker at all. I see him as a man who is supporting an alliance that has stood for a long time.

The UK didn't stand there with it's hand out waiting to see what we could get out of this alliance financially, we were there at the offset. I take pride in that fact.


So Turkey gets paid 20 billion dollars and Britain pays its own way. That just makes us stupid, doesn't it?


However I think he has lost the debate on the issue.


Hopelessly. The man is drowning, not waving. Blair is finished. Clare Short has made him look really stupid. He can't sack her. He now has a cabinet minister who goes on the radio and openly accuses him of being reckless with the future of Britain, and he can't sack her because 80% if the population think she is right and he is wrong. Blairs problems are only just starting. He always used to fall back on the emotional appeal - the 'trust me, I'm genuine' appeal. Now people see it and they see a cynical spin doctor. Sadly, he appears to be spinning for the White House rather than his own country. The man is a traitor.

[Tony]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Clare Short has made him look really stupid.


Clare Short has proven herself to be a hypocrit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/350684.stm

[max]

UCE
A large percentage of the billions to Turkey is on loan.....stupid Turks

[Reginald]

posted by UCE
So Turkey gets paid 20 billion dollars and Britain pays its own way. That just makes us stupid, doesn't it?

No not at all. Do you pay your friends to help you with anything? and do you then think how smart they were to take that stand?

Hopelessly. The man is drowning, not waving. Blair is finished. Clare Short has made him look really stupid. He can't sack her. He now has a cabinet minister who goes on the radio and openly accuses him of being reckless with the future of Britain, and he can't sack her because 80% if the population think she is right and he is wrong. Blairs problems are only just starting. He always used to fall back on the emotional appeal - the 'trust me, I'm genuine' appeal. Now people see it and they see a cynical spin doctor. Sadly, he appears to be spinning for the White House rather than his own country. The man is a traitor.

I said he has put the case badly, I dont think he is finished.
And as for him being a traitor.........

:rolleyes:

[richardm]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

The man is a traitor.


A) He hasn't done anything yet
B) He's said that he'd prefer to get a further resolution before doing anything else.

What is wrong with this? So far, you've got what you want - we're persisting with the UN route.

[LeFevre]

lol UCE maybe you should back off the rhetoric a bit. You took back your statement about cheering when the WTC towers came down, do you really think that Blair is a T-R-A-I-T-O-R?

If you really do, would you mind answering why?

Originally posted by richardm



A) He hasn't done anything yet
B) He's said that he'd prefer to get a further resolution before doing anything else.

What is wrong with this? So far, you've got what you want - we're persisting with the UN route.

As a rubber stamp! The US position has turned the UN into something as ludicrously pointless as Saddams parliament.

[richardm]

.. Have I misunderstood your position, UCE? Do you think that there should be no military action in Iraq even in the (highly unlikely) event that all members of the Security Council agreed to it?

[Reginald]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


As a rubber stamp! The US position has turned the UN into something as ludicrously pointless as Saddams parliament.

What exactly did France et al think they were signing when they signed 1441???

Harsh language?

I argue that it is France et al who have turned the UN into something ludicrous and pointless, they have a chance at resolution number 18, maybe they are thinking ahead to resolution 126?

I think Blair has gone too far trying to meet them in the middle. You can't equate what he has tried to do with being a traitor.

As the Americans might say "I feel in the mood to kick Ars* and eat gum.....and I'm all out of gum"

We might say "I'm in the mood to tell someone off and drink tea.....and I'm all out of tea!"

[Mike B.]

I think Blair does what he does out of conviction on Iraq, whether you agree or not.

I know the Tories and others accuse him of being intrested in spin and no substance.

However, if Blair was the empty suit some see him, he could simply follow the polls and back off.

He must feel strongly enough about it to go this route.

Richard:


Have I misunderstood your position, UCE? Do you think that there should be no military action in Iraq even in the (highly unlikely) event that all members of the Security Council agreed to it?


If the UN actually authorises war then I have no political objection to it. I may have personal moral issues, but the war would not be illegal. Unlike GWB and Blair I recognise the authority of the UN.

Mike :


He must feel strongly enough about it to go this route.


I think he is worried about living in a world where the US acts unilaterally and ignores the UN. But he ended up trying to get the UN to rubberstamp US policy rather than getting the US to accept the authority of the UN. Now he has gone too far down his chosen path and cannot back out.

[Tony]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Richard:



Unlike GWB and Blair I recognise the authority of the UN.




Since when does the UN have authority?

[iain]

The big issue now, which I hear from Blair and from the pro-war people in this forum, is protecting the people of Iraq.

The human rights argument is a valid one. But the question is not "Do we want to do what is best for the Iraqi people?" (the answer to this is yes); it is "What is best for the Iraqi people?".

People have to make up their minds as to which will do the most good for the people in Iraq - war or peace. This is a judgement call; my judgement is that peace is better but I could turn out to be wrong. Since I have limited access to the relevant information I think the best way forward is to let the nations of the UN decide, in accordance with international law.

What is counterproductive are attempts by pro-war people to portray anyone who is anti-war as being anti-human rights, or the rights of the Iraqi people. This is just silly and turns anti-war people even more against the cause. There is a big split here : within countries, political parties, even between the various Iraqi dissident groups there is no agreement.

[iain]

Originally posted by Tony
Clare Short has proven herself to be a hypocrit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/350684.stm She is a politician so it wouldn't surprise me if she were a hypocrite, but not on the evidence of this link. If you believe war is the right thing in one situation, you are not hypocritical to believe war is the wrong thing in a different situation. The situation is everything.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Tony



Since when does the UN have authority?

Awww, come on Tony, think of all those delagates from Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea etc. None of them have a vote back in their own country. Surely you won't deny them their chance to have a vote that counts in the UN!

What's that you say, having a world authority which is supposed to restrain dictators consist of the emmisaries of dictators is Orwellian? Well a cynic might say that BUT I say; set a thief to catch a thief. When I see the UN appoint Libya as the head of it's human rights commission I say GREAT, they've given the job to an expert! Appoint a woosy scandinavian nation and - what the heck do the scandinavians know about human rights abuses!? You wont get anything past Libya, they'll have seen it all before.

I would now like to propose Iraq for the UN disarmament commission.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Giz

I would now like to propose Iraq for the UN disarmament commission.

Too late.............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2704105.stm

:D

[Giz]

Originally posted by Reginald


Too late.............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2704105.stm

:D

It's a sad, bad time when the truth of our interational forum (the UN not JREF) is stranger than (Orwellian) fiction.:(

[iain]

Originally posted by Giz


Awww, come on Tony, think of all those delagates from Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea etc. None of them have a vote back in their own country. Surely you won't deny them their chance to have a vote that counts in the UN!Thsi always makes me laugh. If you are trying to create a world forum where nations can bring their grievances and, where possible, solve them peacefully rather than by resorting to catastrophic war do you

a) Create a body but then say that only "your sort" of country can be a member, thus excluding the very countries you are trying to prevent going to war.

b) Create a body but make sure that all the important roles are taken up by "your sort" of country, relegating other countries; then see how many months/years it lasts before falling apart.

c) Get everyone involved with criteria that don't discriminate against countries that aren't "your sort" and make your world forum have some chance of success.

This is world politics, not the High School debating society. A lot of what goes on is the "least bad" option. Would you rather have these nations being in charge of UN bodies for a year, or outside the UN starting wars all over the place?

[Giz]

Originally posted by iain
Thsi always makes me laugh. If you are trying to create a world forum where nations can bring their grievances and, where possible, solve them peacefully rather than by resorting to catastrophic war do you

a) Create a body but then say that only "your sort" of country can be a member, thus excluding the very countries you are trying to prevent going to war.

b) Create a body but make sure that all the important roles are taken up by "your sort" of country, relegating other countries; then see how many months/years it lasts before falling apart.

c) Get everyone involved with criteria that don't discriminate against countries that aren't "your sort" and make your world forum have some chance of success.

This is world politics, not the High School debating society. A lot of what goes on is the "least bad" option. Would you rather have these nations being in charge of UN bodies for a year, or outside the UN starting wars all over the place?

Bull, false dilemma.

But... I am curious, these countries that would be "outside the UN starting wars all over the place", why are they in the UN? One would presume that they're not there for altruistic reasons so why are they there??? Just hanging out? Throwing a spanner in the UN works? Free lunches?

And your "Get everyone involved with criteria that don't discriminate against countries that aren't "your sort" and make your world forum have some chance of success."
- Nice. I imagine that Mussolini and Hirohito would rein in Hitler something chronic. Or did I mean Mugabe and Assad, or Hussain and Castro, or Kim Jong-il and Chirac?

You can make an argument for the UN being a useful forum, but don't go arguing that it can give moral wieght to a descision. The fact that a hundred dictators have given or witheld approval is not an indicator of morality.

[Mike B.]

Yesterday I watched Jack Straw on C-Span, that is a cable channel here in America that shows parliments from all over the world. Of course now the focus is more on the UK.

Whether you agree with him or not, the guy is good. He seemed to make mince-meat out of the Liberal Democrats. When a doctor (can't remember her name) from the Liberal Democrats accused the government of ignoring the UN. He laughed and said, "What do you think we have been doing for the past five months?"

I think some of our leaders wouldn't last 5 minutes in such a forum.

Many questions to him were on Israel/Palistine. I wonder if he and Blair could be the chief movers in getting that done. I mean it may be impossible, but they are very fair to both sides of that conflict.

[iain]

Originally posted by Giz


Bull, false dilemma.

But... I am curious, these countries that would be "outside the UN starting wars all over the place", why are they in the UN? One would presume that they're not there for altruistic reasons so why are they there??? Just hanging out? Throwing a spanner in the UN works? Free lunches? If you look into the history of the UN and the League of Nations that may help you to answer these questions.

[Giz]

Originally posted by iain
If you look into the history of the UN and the League of Nations that may help you to answer these questions.

I am aware of the history of the UN and the League of Nations. Thanks for asking :)
Why do YOU think that Mussolini and Hirohito types would rein in a Hitler? Why would dictators co-operate with the US et al in constraining each other?

[iain]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Whether you agree with him or not, the guy is good. He seemed to make mince-meat out of the Liberal Democrats. When a doctor (can't remember her name) from the Liberal Democrats accused the government of ignoring the UN. He laughed and said, "What do you think we have been doing for the past five months?"British politicians are good at the cut-and-thrust of debate because they have to answer hostile questions every week in the House of Commons. Don't mistake being a good debater (especially when you get to have the last word) for being right though.

Of course I didn't see the program you're referring to, but the British government will be ignoring the UN if they support a war on Iraq when the UN has voted against it. You can argue that this is the right or the wrong thing to do, but right or wrong it will most certainly be ignoring the UN in the most important way.

Needless to say for political and diplomatic reasons the British government wants to avoid this. Britain doesn't have the power of the US and they aren't stupid - they aren't going to alienate people for the sake of it. But the crunch question is still whether the UK will abide by international law or step outside it and right now the Government have made it very clear that they will step outside it if they don't get their own way within it.

[iain]

Originally posted by Giz


I am aware of the history of the UN and the League of Nations. Thanks for asking :)
Why do YOU think that Mussolini and Hirohito types would rein in a Hitler? Why would dictators co-operate with the US et al in constraining each other? Hitler died nearly 60 years ago and luckily there is no similar person in the world today.

If you want the UN to be able to reign in dictators who don't even exist, that may indeed be asking more than the body can achieve. If, on the other hand, you want a body which can deal with the real situations of the world today then the UN, imperfect as it is, seems to me to be the best option we have at the moment.

[Giz]

Originally posted by iain
Hitler died nearly 60 years ago and luckily there is no similar person in the world today.

If you want the UN to be able to reign in dictators who don't even exist, that may indeed be asking more than the body can achieve. If, on the other hand, you want a body which can deal with the real situations of the world today then the UN, imperfect as it is, seems to me to be the best option we have at the moment.

Iraq, N Korea?

[iain]

Originally posted by Giz


Iraq, N Korea? Nazi Germany had the world's largest, newest and most powerful army and a clear desire to use that army to gain power and territory. The military powers of Iraq and North Korea are tiny in comparison to the better armed nations of the modern world.

You might also like to explain where the UN has failed with respect to these two countries. Has Saddam launched another invasion and no one told me? Have diplomatic options completely failed with either of these two countries? Is war against both of them the only option left (even Bush doesn't think that).

[Reginald]

So do we think it is the French and Russians threatening to veto any ammendent put down by the US/UK, or the threat that the US/UK will invade anyway, that is making Sadam H give over the little bit of cooperation we have seen this far?

Its very easy for the FR/Rusians to claim some sucess, however given that the incentive that Saddam has for those consessions is two armies sitting on his doorstep ready to ignore the UN, makes the whole thing somethig of a mockery.

And lets not forget that back in "The good old days" before the break up of the USSR, the UN was almost incapable of any action/decision given the Soviet Veto that was played 172 times IIRC.

So what happens if the US and UK go in anyway? Whats the worst that can happen to them?

They may get 17 resolutions raised against them, that will be ok, no-one pays any attention to the things in any case.


:rolleyes:

[iain]

Originally posted by Reginald
So do we think it is the French and Russians threatening to veto any ammendent put down by the US/UK, or the threat that the US/UK will invade anyway, that is making Sadam H give over the little bit of cooperation we have seen this far?

Its very easy for the FR/Rusians to claim some sucess, however given that the incentive that Saddam has for those consessions is two armies sitting on his doorstep ready to ignore the UN, makes the whole thing somethig of a mockery.I think there's a lot of truth in that. The UN has previously agreed to weapons inspections with the threat that war will be used as a last resort if Saddam doesn't cooperate. I'm sure that threat, and the willingness of the US and UK to carry it through, has helped get things moving.

So what happens if the US and UK go in anyway? Whats the worst that can happen to them?

They may get 17 resolutions raised against them, that will be ok, no-one pays any attention to the things in any case.I think that's the thing. The UN itself can't and won't do much if the UK and US bypass them. The UN will be weakened and may again become ineffective. This would be a bad thing for the world. For the powerful nations to ignore international law because they can get away with it is not necessarily a good thing.

[Tony]

Originally posted by iain

I think that's the thing. The UN itself can't and won't do much if the UK and US bypass them. The UN will be weakened and may again become ineffective. This would be a bad thing for the world. For the powerful nations to ignore international law because they can get away with it is not necessarily a good thing.

Is it a good thing that weak nations can ignore international law and get away with it?

Lets face it, the UN is a joke. They havent had any success solving conflicts, indeed, they had made them worst and drawn them out.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Q-Source


I must recognise that Blair has a lot of courage to face the anti-war audience and their criticism.

Without the resolution, he is politically dead and he knows that. So, why does he continue supporting the war?

Perhaps because he has courage and integrity. The courage to do the right thing in spite of public opinion is a rare trait in most politicians. Usually, like Clinton, they take a poll and tilt with the prevailling wind of public opinion. That is what "politics as usual" means. But that's not leadership.

Democracy is a great thing, but the mob must sometimes be reigned in by a real leader who is willing to go out on a political limb and do the right thing regardless of the passions of the "great unwashed masses".

Consider Vermont. The Governor there signed into law a provision for gay men and lesbians to be joined in a recognized legal union that mimics the benefits of marriage. Vermont voters were outraged and started a grassroots "Take Back Vermont" campaign. Today Vermont still has the civil union law on the books. Vermont's governor is now a Republican. Governor Dean decided to "retire" rather than run for re-election.

Governor Dean on the signing of the civil union law:
"I think it is a courageous and powerful statement about who we are in the state of Vermont," CNN quotes Gov. Dean. "I also believe that this legislation speaks to the heart of this state, and certainly to my heart."


...so this politician had the courage of his convictions. That's a damned rare thing. No matter what anyone may think of the issue of gay civil unions....you at least have to admire this guy's courage.

He signed the bill in private: The bill establishing "civil unions" reached the governor's desk shortly before lunch on Wednesday, just a day after the House of Representatives gave its final approval. Out of view of TV and newspaper cameras and with little fanfare, the historic bill was signed into law.

Explaining his low-key approach, Gov. Dean said, "In politics, bill-signings are triumphal. They represent overcoming of one side over another. These celebrations, as the subject of the matter of the bill, will be private."



.....the bill was so despised by such a large portion of Vermonters that it was done behind closed doors.

Here's what the opposition had to say: The town meeting vote, on the other hand, gave civil union opponents the ammunition they needed to claim broad public opposition to the bill. These arguments added an angry tone to the complaints of opponents who believe the Legislature has ignored the will of the people.

"Stop shoving this bill down the throats of our people," the New York Times quotes Representative George Schiavone, a Republican. "Our people are coughing and gagging and choking on this bill," he said, and could "throw it up and throw us out."

"This is a sad, black day in the state of Vermont. God help us all," the Boston Globe quotes Representative George R. Allard who turned his back when Representative William J. Lippert Jr., the Legislature's only openly gay member, asked his colleagues to pass a bill about love.

"As we prepare to commit social rape upon an unwilling citizenry, our lady of liberty weeps. said Representative Neil Randall. "The crumbling of that foundation is based on moral rot," he said, adding that the nation will be "appalled" by Vermont's action and that the state will suffer economically.

Standing beside Randall on the House floor, Representative Nancy J. Sheltra reminded legislators that sodomy was punishable by death in the state of Vermont the 19th century, prompting a partial walkout. "Why would you encourage anal sex, sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS among a part of our society?"


One can only wonder how long it will be before Vermont's new Republican governor gets this law repealed. In the meantime, far from "retiring" the ex-Governor Howard Dean is running to be the Democratic challenger to GWB in 2004.

I wouldn't give him a snowball's chance in hell of even being the party nominee....but here at least is a politician (like Tony Blair) who had the courage of his convictions. He faced down a huge opposition in Vermont, and did what he thought was the right thing to do.

I applaud him,....and I applaud Tony Blair. The mob is not democracy....the mob is just a mob. Democracy is tempored by law and morality...the mob is not.

-zilla

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2840039.stm

Tuesday, 11 March, 2003, 15:06 GMT


A number of Labour MPs are threatening to challenge Tony Blair's leadership should he take the country to war without the backing of the United Nations.
The MPs say they will demand an emergency party conference to discuss his position.

Mark Seddon, a left-wing member of Labour's National Executive Committee, said the NEC could give a sympathetic hearing to a request for a special conference should war go ahead without a second UN resolution.

But John Reid, Labour's chairman, dismissed the prospect, predicting that it would instead be heavily defeated by the NEC, and was just the work of a few "usual suspects".

However, Mr Seddon was not deterred. He insisted: "All the way through, Tony Blair has taken the party with him on this promise of the UN route.

"To risk breaking international law, to risk the future of the UN, and breaking the party too ... would probably mean that there would be support [for a conference] from a good number of MPs and trade unionists."

His stance was supported by veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell, who told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "As soon as it becomes clear that the UN is disregarded, yes, certainly a letter will go out to our colleagues asking for a special conference of the Labour Party.

"I don't think it is possible to exaggerate the degree of concern about the illegality of what is proposed," said the Father of the House and MP for Linlithgow, also an avid critic of Mr Blair.



NB : Only 83 votes required to initiate the leadership challenge, compared to 121 rebels on the last vote and up to 200 reported to be opposed to acting without UN authority.

If Blair commits UK troops to an illegal war he is in very serious trouble indeed.

[Reginald]

NB : Only 83 votes required to initiate the leadership challenge, compared to 121 rebels on the last vote and up to 200 reported to be opposed to acting without UN authority.


And what if the house of commons vote and support Tony Blair?

Who runs this country the Labour Party or the Gov with the backing of the house of commons?

[richardm]

I've been thinking about this potential leadership challenge since I heard about it this morning, and I fail to see how it's likely to make any difference.

I can see 3 possible scenarios:

1. There is insufficient time to change leaders before war breaks out, but the war is a rapid success.

2. There is insufficient time to change leaders before war breaks out, and the war is a complete disaster, with allied troops bogged down, huge losses, and so on.

3. The war is delayed enough so that there is time to change leaders.


In case 1 - Blair would be smelling of roses, all would be forgiven, and the leadership challenge would fail.

In case 2 - Disaster, and Blair would be on his way out anyway

In case 3 - Clearly, Blair has continued to pursue the UN route, and there would be no grounds to replace him.

So what is the hoo-hah about?

[Reginald]

Richardm

Its all SOP for the "old" labour party, Claire Short could have made her principled stand at the time of Blair not getting the 18th resolution.

The tories must be loving all this, it's let IDS off the hook and it will just give them ammunition when they say that the old Labour party are just itching to come out in the open again.

Most people dont want a country being run by a gang of trades union leaders and would be "Citizen Smiths".

Thats why I think Blair is safe on this one.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Reginald
Richardm

Its all SOP for the "old" labour party, Claire Short could have made her principled stand at the time of Blair not getting the 18th resolution.

The tories must be loving all this, it's let IDS off the hook and it will just give them ammunition when they say that the old Labour party are just itching to come out in the open again.

Most people dont want a country being run by a gang of trades union leaders and would be "Citizen Smiths".

Thats why I think Blair is safe on this one.

Reginald,

It's so nice to finally hear such a rational political assessment of the situation from a non-leftist Briton!! My father-in-law was a policeman and upon his retirement was head of security at Windsor Castle. He was a fantastic guy...and a Maggie Thatcher conservative. Back in '86 when I first met him he took me round to some good pubs in Windsor and I met many of his friends...all ex-military. The older ones were WWII vets,...the others were Korea vets....to me they seemed like the strong backbone of old England. Impressive, resolute, and strongly pro-American conservatives. (of course I had to get past the good natured jibes that came my way for the crime of being a "bloody yank") ;)

He's dead now....as are many of his friends I suppose. I'm so glad to hear that the "loony left" is not so strong as some of your countrymen posters here would have us believe. The British people and American people are historically strong allies, together we can go anywhere on earth to prosecute this WOT. I will not believe the left has enough influence to oust Blair until it actually happens. The Brits are not the French...they can be counted upon to take the right decision,...even if it's a hard and unpopular one.

Good on ya mate!
-zilla