|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 5, 2023 9:55:06 GMT
I didn't put it on the OP. So stop making silly comments to suit your own stupid approach. Who said you did? so you decided you would feed us a lot of Utopian bullshit, I don't think so Einstein. You did by implication. I just offered some information and clarification that was clearly beyond your comprehension. So carry on making a fool of yourself by attempting to be clever and failing so dramatically. BYE  |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 5, 2023 9:59:40 GMT
Who said you did? so you decided you would feed us a lot of Utopian bullshit, I don't think so Einstein. You did by implication. I just offered some information and clarification that was clearly beyond your comprehension. So carry on making a fool of yourself by attempting to be clever and failing so dramatically. BYE No I didn't you did. When I pointed out you were spouting Utopian bullshit straight out of the WEF manual as it happens. Using the thread title as an excuse just won't do. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Mar 6, 2023 1:37:19 GMT
I considered myself to be quite balanced.
I judge people on a policy / decision by policy / decision basis. It is a shame that most people on here judge by who is speaking, not what they are saying.
Personally I liked Blair and don't give two shits about the so called illegal war in Iraq. The War on Terror was a direct response to 9/11, and Saddam Hussein was funding terrorism. He got what he deserved. What do people suggest the UK do? Not support its closest ally? Do you think the US would be helping Ukraine right now if everybody in the West had condemned their War on Terror? lol.
I do find it interesting that not one of you listed the fact that Blair / Brown allowed a massive debt bubble to build up under their watch, which left us fucked during the financial crisis. When you think about what has effected you personally the most it is the financial crisis, not some terrorist funding dictator getting his comeuppance.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 6, 2023 9:10:03 GMT
I considered myself to be quite balanced. I judge people on a policy / decision by policy / decision basis. It is a shame that most people on here judge by who is speaking, not what they are saying. Personally I liked Blair and don't give two shits about the so called illegal war in Iraq. The War on Terror was a direct response to 9/11, and Saddam Hussein was funding terrorism. He got what he deserved. What do people suggest the UK do? Not support its closest ally? Do you think the US would be helping Ukraine right now if everybody in the West had condemned their War on Terror? lol. I do find it interesting that not one of you listed the fact that Blair / Brown allowed a massive debt bubble to build up under their watch, which left us fucked during the financial crisis. When you think about what has effected you personally the most it is the financial crisis, not some terrorist funding dictator getting his comeuppance. Iraq was important. The British army was there to look after the protection of the British people and the vital interests of Britain. To make that appear as necessary the information was manipulated and spun so that that belief was paramount. It turned out to be a lie, was known to known to be a lie by those tasked with the welfare of the British people, and most importantly, the welfare, safety and proper utilisation of our armed forces. If that led to one death or disablement it was wrong. In the event it lead to many deaths and disablements and that is unforgiveable. Blair wanted his Falklands moment and was prepared to get it at the cost of British lives. Being a statesman was more important. It is a principle historical example of power being abused. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 6, 2023 9:23:18 GMT
I considered myself to be quite balanced. I judge people on a policy / decision by policy / decision basis. It is a shame that most people on here judge by who is speaking, not what they are saying. Personally I liked Blair and don't give two shits about the so called illegal war in Iraq. The War on Terror was a direct response to 9/11, and Saddam Hussein was funding terrorism. He got what he deserved. What do people suggest the UK do? Not support its closest ally? Do you think the US would be helping Ukraine right now if everybody in the West had condemned their War on Terror? lol. I do find it interesting that not one of you listed the fact that Blair / Brown allowed a massive debt bubble to build up under their watch, which left us fucked during the financial crisis. When you think about what has effected you personally the most it is the financial crisis, not some terrorist funding dictator getting his comeuppance. Iraq was important. The British army was there to look after the protection of the British people and the vital interests of Britain. To make that appear as necessary the information was manipulated and spun so that that belief was paramount. It turned out to be a lie, was known to known to be a lie by those tasked with the welfare of the British people, and most importantly, the welfare, safety and proper utilisation of our armed forces. If that led to one death or disablement it was wrong. In the event it lead to many deaths and disablements and that is unforgiveable. Blair wanted his Falklands moment and was prepared to get it at the cost of British lives. Being a statesman was more important. It is a principle historical example of power being abused. ---- That is a lie. Some of the propaganda used in the US might have been an exaggeration BUT the fact that Iraq / Saddam did not fully comply with UN Res.1441. Which meant he did not comply with the Ceasefire agreement of 1991, made it impossible to determine whether or not Iraq was free of WMD. As Blix said, Saddam was playing "cat and mouse" games with the UN Inspectors thus adding credibility to the belief that he did have WMD. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 6, 2023 9:30:17 GMT
Iraq was important. The British army was there to look after the protection of the British people and the vital interests of Britain. To make that appear as necessary the information was manipulated and spun so that that belief was paramount. It turned out to be a lie, was known to known to be a lie by those tasked with the welfare of the British people, and most importantly, the welfare, safety and proper utilisation of our armed forces. If that led to one death or disablement it was wrong. In the event it lead to many deaths and disablements and that is unforgiveable. Blair wanted his Falklands moment and was prepared to get it at the cost of British lives. Being a statesman was more important. It is a principle historical example of power being abused. ---- That is a lie. Some of the propaganda used in the US might have been an exaggeration BUT the fact that Iraq / Saddam did not fully comply with UN Res.1441. Which meant he did not comply with the Ceasefire agreement of 1991, made it impossible to determine whether or not Iraq was free of WMD. As Blix said, Saddam was playing "cat and mouse" games with the UN Inspectors thus adding credibility to the belief that he did have WMD. Exaggeration is a lie if you know you are exaggerating. If you say you have three apples and you only have two that is a lie. If you say the information is sound when you know it is dodgy that is a lie. If you say there are WMD when you are not sure than that is a lie. When you say the country could be in danger within 45 minutes when you know that is not the case that is a lie. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Mar 6, 2023 9:44:26 GMT
Here is a test open to everyone to guage impartiality. Anyone with a reasonable claim to be impartial ought to be able to provide answers. Name three faults or errors or mistakes made by each of the following. Margaret Thatcher. Tony Blair Nick Clegg Nicola Sturgeon Neil Kinnock David Cameron Jeremy Corbyn. I will give my own repsonses in a following post. Margaret Thatcher
None, except that she was incapable of doing nothing. After she had seen off the unions and the Argies she was at a lose end, so she stated on the rates. The latter needed reforming, but not in such a rush.
Dunno about the rest, although I always remember Nick Clegg appearing during a referendum debate and declaring that he did not have a racist bone in his body, which suggested that he had not a clue as to what Brexit was all about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 6, 2023 10:04:35 GMT
I know this is a view that will be not be shared by many Conservatives, but I think the poll tax / Council Tax is probably one of the biggest mistakes the conservatives have made.
I understand the thinking - ie to increase accountability for voting - but it hasn't worked out like that and i think it was predictable it wouldn't
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 6, 2023 10:24:01 GMT
I know this is a view that will be not be shared by many Conservatives, but I think the poll tax / Council Tax is probably one of the biggest mistakes the conservatives have made. I understand the thinking - ie to increase accountability for voting - but it hasn't worked out like that and i think it was predictable it wouldn't I think the poll tax was a good concept that failed because of its administrative details. Having said that, my idea would have raised less income, thereby defeating the object of replacing government funding with poll tax receipts. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Mar 6, 2023 10:38:24 GMT
I know this is a view that will be not be shared by many Conservatives, but I think the poll tax / Council Tax is probably one of the biggest mistakes the conservatives have made. I understand the thinking - ie to increase accountability for voting - but it hasn't worked out like that and i think it was predictable it wouldn't Quite.
The rates were long overdue for reform, but there was no need to go at it like a bull in a china shop.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 6, 2023 10:50:10 GMT
"was known to known to be a lie" ---- That is a lie. Some of the propaganda used in the US might have been an exaggeration BUT the fact that Iraq / Saddam did not fully comply with UN Res.1441. Which meant he did not comply with the Ceasefire agreement of 1991, made it impossible to determine whether or not Iraq was free of WMD. As Blix said, Saddam was playing "cat and mouse" games with the UN Inspectors thus adding credibility to the belief that he did have WMD. Exaggeration is a lie if you know you are exaggerating. If you say you have three apples and you only have two that is a lie. If you say the information is sound when you know it is dodgy that is a lie. If you say there are WMD when you are not sure than that is a lie. When you say the country could be in danger within 45 minutes when you know that is not the case that is a lie. I don't deny that exaggeration took place in AMERICA. The information that Iraq could have WMD ready in 45mns was genuine intelligence information passed on to the New Labour government. it was quite soon revealed that the information was single sourced and could not be used which is why the first dossier was replaced by the so called dodgy dossier. That the information was single sourced and could not be used did not alter the fact that it could be correct. No one knew one way or the other. None of which alters the fact that Iraq was in breach of UN Res 1441 which had given Saddam --- "A FINAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLY WITH THE CEASEFIRE AGREEMENT OF 1991--- which made it legal to invade Iraq in 2003. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Mar 6, 2023 11:01:38 GMT
I know this is a view that will be not be shared by many Conservatives, but I think the poll tax / Council Tax is probably one of the biggest mistakes the conservatives have made. I understand the thinking - ie to increase accountability for voting - but it hasn't worked out like that and i think it was predictable it wouldn't Rates were the only effective wealth tax we had and of course to Thatcherites they couldn't have the wealthy paying their fair share so to them the Poll Tax was an irresistible plan until they realised it was a looming electoral disaster. Council Tax that replaced it is mostly a tax on the middle classes, the true wealthy just laugh at the way they got away with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Mar 6, 2023 11:17:17 GMT
I know this is a view that will be not be shared by many Conservatives, but I think the poll tax / Council Tax is probably one of the biggest mistakes the conservatives have made. I understand the thinking - ie to increase accountability for voting - but it hasn't worked out like that and i think it was predictable it wouldn't I think the poll tax was a good concept that failed because of its administrative details. Having said that, my idea would have raised less income, thereby defeating the object of replacing government funding with poll tax receipts. This is where I fall out with many conservatives - I think the whole notion is both impractical and unfairLet me give you an example. Imagine a local council is going to perform some work that will make an area better. Imagine we have a landlord in that area with (say) five tenants. The work benefits the landlord commercially - there is upward pressure on his rents and it increases the value of his holdings. The work (in a sense) increases the costs for the tenants. They now experience upward pressure on rents and rising property prices. However, the landlord and tenants all contribute equal amounts to perform the work. In a sense, the tenants are being charged twice - once by the government (to do the work) and again by the landlord in elevated rents (resulting from the work). |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Mar 6, 2023 11:23:09 GMT
"was known to known to be a lie" ---- That is a lie. Some of the propaganda used in the US might have been an exaggeration BUT the fact that Iraq / Saddam did not fully comply with UN Res.1441. Which meant he did not comply with the Ceasefire agreement of 1991, made it impossible to determine whether or not Iraq was free of WMD. As Blix said, Saddam was playing "cat and mouse" games with the UN Inspectors thus adding credibility to the belief that he did have WMD. Exaggeration is a lie if you know you are exaggerating. If you say you have three apples and you only have two that is a lie. If you say the information is sound when you know it is dodgy that is a lie. If you say there are WMD when you are not sure than that is a lie. When you say the country could be in danger within 45 minutes when you know that is not the case that is a lie. It was a "War on Terror", the purpose of the "dodgy dossier" was to give red meat to the do-gooders. With or without that dossier we were always going to help our biggest ally. Would you rather he had lived and continued to fund terrorism? Can you imagine if they had done nothing and he had given terrorists chemical or nuclear weapons to attack the West with? |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Mar 6, 2023 11:26:33 GMT
Exaggeration is a lie if you know you are exaggerating. If you say you have three apples and you only have two that is a lie. If you say the information is sound when you know it is dodgy that is a lie. If you say there are WMD when you are not sure than that is a lie. When you say the country could be in danger within 45 minutes when you know that is not the case that is a lie. It was a "War on Terror", the purpose of the "dodgy dossier" was to give red meat to the do-gooders. With or without that dossier we were always going to help our biggest ally. Would you rather he had lived and continued to fund terrorism? Can you imagine if they had done nothing and he had given terrorists chemical or nuclear weapons to attack the West with? Oh sure how right you are, but alas the war on terror was ten fold bigger afterwards. Because it created more terrorists than it ever defeated. |
|
