h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think perhaps you think better of people than I do

Ohhhhhhhhh, I don't think so. Which is why I don't think people are clever enough to be evil. They can mostly be very nasty.

az

Well, my dictionary says "morally wrong or bad; wicked". I think of plenty of people capable of that.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Blair is 'good'. Just that he isn't 'evil'. Someone posted on another thread that they could not disagree with Blair's opinions since he actually didn't seem to have any of his own.

az

Oh come on, pots and bloody big kettles here. Blair may be indirectly responsible for the death of one man in his bid to stay in power, but it remains a fact, and one that the Tories know full well, that they too would have backed the Iran invasion had they been in power. Thatcher's greed fro power led her directly to send a thousand Argentinian schoolboys to their deaths.

Blair played a very bad hand of cards over Iran. he should have stuck with 'Sddam + unpleasant odious man who needs to be removed' and left out the weapons of mass disappearance. I would have backed a wat fought for those reasons, and he couldn't have been caught out later.

.>>Blair may be indirectly responsible for the death of one man in his bid to stay in power>>

In fact he was more than indirectly responsible. Nice guy, Tony.

az

"the Iran invasion" You know something the rest of us don't

Oh, and I would disagree with you over the Falkland's conflict... it was no more unjustified than the first gulf war in 1991 was.




My, isn't this discussion getting serious all of a sudden.

I read Michael Moore's message to Tony the other day. He said that without his help Bush could never have got this last outrageous and unfair war off the ground. That Bush needed another global power to back him up.

In fact, Moore was very in awe about how this had happened. He said, speaking to the British public - (paraphrasing)that at least YOU guys over there READ and KNOW what is happening in the world!

Whoops, are we being too serious?

az

Slip of the keyboard but as Iran is now being asked to prove a negative or suffer the consequences, I think that I will stand by what i said.

As for Moore's comments, spot, true. Huge numbers o us did oppose the war. But like the US government, Blair didn't listen to us. No other British government since the war would have either.

The point about the Falklands wasn't whether it was justifiable, btw, it's whether it was preventable, which it almost certainly was. Intelligence knew a fleet was massing in the River Plate. Thatcher chose to wait until after the invasion to launch a counter attack, whereas David Owen (Foreign Secretary in the Callaghan administration), faced with the same difficulty about a decade earlier had quietly sent out a couple of warships and a message of 'Hands off, them's ours', and the fleet in the River Plate strangely disappeared...

It's a matter of perspective and how cynical one is prepared to believe that politician are/can be. I mean, personally, I think they are all scum, but what do I know?

<>

The war against Iraq would have been totally preventable if not for some totally whacko so-called 'justifications', doncha think?

az

I beg to differ a little on the causes of the Falklands war BS...

Ok, a decade earlier the Argentinians may have backed down, that was mainly due to them believing we would and could do something about an invasion.

Unfortunately, in 1982 the situation was a little different - we'd just announced the scraping and non-replacement of HMS Endurance (the only permanent Naval presence in the South Atlantic)
The government had announced that they were selling off our Aircraft Carriers - thus we would be totally incapable of sending a task force down to the Falklands..

The Argentinians took this at face value and when warned off in 1982 they didn't take it seriously because they didn't think we were in a position to do anything about it...

The ironic thing is that if they'd waited another year we wouldn't have been.

It wasn't a case of the Government wanting war and thus not seeking a diplomatic solution, it was more a case of them selling of our fleet wholesale and thus sending out a message that we were no longer interested in being a global naval power.

Either way, I'm afraid it comes down pretty squarely to Government failure yet again leading to unnecessary death.

If war is the direct result of diplomatic failure then yes, but I read into your first post on the subject more along the lines of a concious decision to choose war over diplomacy... I think this was more of a case of not having a choice due to incompetency!

I don't think Maggie actually went out of her way to provoke a war - she (and the previous labour government who'd crucified our armed forces) had just dug themselves into a hole where they would have nothing to back up diplomacy with.

I seem to recall that the whole point of John Nott's now legendary walk out when querstioned by Robin day was because he effectively didn't have an answwer to why it was, in the face of advice and comment from all sides (particularly Dr Death) the Tory Government of the day had decided that forces to protect the South atlantic.

Of course, the other fascinating thing is that despite the widelty percieved view that the Falklands was two bald men figghting over a comb, both we and the Junta knew that it was to do with potential mineral rights in Antartica, so quite WHY any UK government had become so complacent about the matter is beyond me.

So, to be honest, if Blair is to be blamed for being DIRECTLY responsible for a mans SUICIDE, then I think Thatcher can take her share of responsibility for the cock-ups and failures that led to that little bit of bother in Las Malvinhas.

Blair deliberately allowed a man's name to be released to the press, for no better reason than it was politically expedient to do so, an dwhould act as a smoke screen to hide his own dishonest and possible downright illegal activities.

Maggie went to war in a situation where diplomatic efforts were untenable due to a series of poor decisions.

The former I find morally more unpleasent than the latter, due to the intent behinds the actions.

Round of applause for KA... that's roughly what I was trying to say... only you managed it in half the words


Getting this thread back off (or on ) topic...

You haven't found my ex yet then?

I'm waiting for replies to my posters....
You wouldn't like to give me any clues? Height, weight, age, place of work, that sort of thing?

**thinks**

NO!!!!!
Nyet!!!
Non!!!!
Nein!!!
Não!!!!

Coward.

**thinks even harder**

Yes!!!!
Da!!!!!
Oui!!!!
Ja!!!
Just what is the Portuguese for yes anyway?