Man of Harveys
Well-known member
In order to wash the spunk put into your bottom by the big boys away?Lokki 7 said:
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Who is the worst PM ?.
- Thread starter Uncle Spielberg
- Start date
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
Erm, I've just read your email - of course that was just a joke, hahaha, don't beat me up. Please don't.Man of Harveys said:
The Large One
Who's Next?
Yes, because it must be terrible only being allowed to have a career in what you studied.Chicken Run said:20. Record number of students in higher education
Huh record number of young people looking for jobs 4 years later with no relevance to their qualifications
Last edited:
Lokki 7
WSU
Man of Harveys said:
No. To allow older boys to put spunk into my bottom whilst flogging me violently.
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,156
obviously all politicians present the most favourable version of the figures but I don't think many of these are really disputed... the achievements of New Labour when listed are quite staggering in the extent to which a coherent programme backed by a stable economy has been able to make real difference to the lives of so many ordinary people...Rookie said:
hence the fact that all people in opposition bang on about is how "Tony Blair has murdered 650,000 innocent civilians"... etc etc
What a f***ing nob you sound. The tories have been a byword for sleeze for decades.Chicken Run said:
Who can forget John "family values" Major. Well most of us actually, if it wasn't for the fact he was hanging out the back of Edwina Currie without his wife knowing obviously) whilst he was spouting this shit as one of his policy building blocks.
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,156
the point is that if Blair and New Labour have been such an all round disaster then it would be helpful to hear about something else occasionally...Simster said:
my view is that it is right that those countries who are capable should make a contribution to forcing regime change when necessary
hindsight is a wonderful thing - a lot of those people taking anti-war positions now would presumably have been in favour of our non-intervention while Hitler went about "reforming" Germany in the 30s...
NiceSimster said:
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
Eh? There's simply no comparison whatsoever to be drawn between the obvious imminent threat to Europe from the grand-standing, remilitarising stridency of the Nazis in the 1930s and the fact that Saddam had been around for ages and ages and been a persistently annoying boil a long way away that the Americans had wanted to lance since the first Gulf War. Unlike what the morons had people believing after Sep 11, neither he or Iraq posed a threat to mainland US. Don't think you could quite say the same about the Nazis - everyone with a brain who saw what was going on in Germany in the 30s was ringing the warning bells like mad.Moshe Gariani said:
To lump together people who don't think charging into countries that aren't threatening you is OK with 1930s appeasers who were selling countries to the Nazis is complete horseshit, with all due respect.
If you do want a parallel between then and now, I'm sure that Algae/Oceanic and some of their other similar little bottom-feeders at the time would happily have joined in condemning the "waves" of Jewish refugees coming to the UK in the 1930s in order to escaping their growing persecution in Europe.
Last edited:
Moshe Gariani
Well-known member
- Mar 10, 2005
- 12,156
you've missed my point... the parallel is not to do with expansionism but just general mentalism of the type that thinks it's ok for the state to execute hundreds of thousands... throw in the capability to develop WMD and you have a situation that needed dealing with...Man of Harveys said:
the fact that it took "everyone with a brain" around 10 years to act against Hitler is one of the lessons of history
The other important difference is that the U.N didn't exist in 1939. It does now, and Blair went to the U.N for a mandate on Iraq, and France vetoed it, as did the Russians I think. That meant that going into war was ILLEGAL in the eyes of the international community.Moshe Gariani said:
It was all *nudge nudge wink wink if you knew what I know* to the electorate when it became clear there were no WMD and it was costing the tax payer an absolute fortune. And what do you know, it was all bollocks.
Blair took us to war off the back of the American voters, not his own. And I'll forever hate him for it.
The Clown of Pevensey Bay
Well-known member
Uncle Spielberg said:
And why are they bad?
Man of Harveys
Well-known member
But, as Gaddafi joked (ahem) at the time the swashes were being buckled: if the Americans really wanted to bomb the shit out of those countries that had "harboured" (my quotes) Islamic terrorists, like those, say, involved in Sep 11, wouldn't they be having to bomb half of western Europe - including the UK, Germany, France, Spain - rather than Iraq? The WMD drivel is was and always will be a total fiction. You could concoct a similar pack of lies about any country if you were desperate to invade and enforce regime change and tread of the graves of those who died in New York as you do so. It's indefensable.Moshe Gariani said:
Moshe Gariani said:
Well actually, here is your point:
And that is why the U.N security council is made up of 5 economic and military powers along with other rotated members. Yet not only did Blair ignore the U.N vote on Iraq, he also ignored the wishes of his own electorate and has still failed to provide any justification for it.Moshe Gariani said:
If Nazi Germany had risen now, I think the U.N. would have voted on sanctions long before the Nazi military machine got anywhere close to being big enough to be able to roll into neighbouring countries including a big country like France without as much as a fight. It's a silly comparison.