babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » A plea for Britain

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: A plea for Britain
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 03 November 2004 03:02 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Please, please, please don't be as stupid as the USA. That is all. Thank you.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 03 November 2004 07:15 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree. Blair just called on every one to essentially rally around Bush. It's not smart Mr.Blair. He's playing with fire within his own party, let alone within the wider electorate.
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 November 2004 07:42 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It will be interesting to watch the next year in the Labour party.

The British people decided long ago, before the invasion of Iraq began, and the numbers of those opposed has only grown since then.

It is not as though Blair doesn't know that. I mean, really: we know on babble, but Blair hasn't got the message yet?

Blair's reasons for supporting Bush must have been complex, more complicated than people who call him Bush's poodle are admitting.

I think it is believable that Blair feared USian unilateralism, and concluded (perversely, to me, but still believably) that an alliance would be better for international order than would be general defiance of the U.S.

I think that Blair was wrong, and I fear for us all, all of us victims of that realpolitikisch view, but I see why he did it.

I wish that the slaughter to come was not coming towards us, and that we wouldn't have to lay it at the door of well-intentioned liberals like Blair.

But it is coming, and Blair is more guilty than most. The poor sod.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 04 November 2004 01:36 AM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
LibDems force Labour into minority, my computer plays Manowar's Hail to England for 24 straight hours.
From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 04 November 2004 03:48 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know they might loose to the Conservatives. Unless Charles Kennedy could pull something out.

Skadal you're view is absolutely right. Blair seems so insistent that he's right about this. But everyone knows that Saddam didn't have those weapons. So know he's insisting that's okay because Saddam was such a bad guy. But he fails to see that he lied about why they should go to war. War is a very large decision, and you just can't lie about something like that (unless your an American President or to be fair leader of another Empire). And even then the consequences come back and bite you in the butt. The opposition is going to hammer him about the lie. And unlike the American public, he doesn't have that strong of a base to back him up. Labour voters will be less likely to go to the polls, unless it's for a rebel MP or to vote for some other party.

They're in Iraq now so the job has to be finished, but I don't think it's going to be successful. It's just made things worse. And Blair has probably thrown his future out the window with it.

You know I'm not to optimistic about the Labour Party dumping him. They could still do it I but it will have to be soon. Because legally they only have five years before they have to call another election, meaning they have to call one for early 2006. They ought to make a decision and do it quickly.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 04 November 2004 03:44 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Skdadl, if Britain as a whole doesn't dump Blair / distance itself from Bush, what do you think are the chances Scotland will separate?

The Scots have always had much closer ties to the continent than the Angles. If Britain as a whole can't be moved, I would love to see the power in "old Europe" reorganized and revitalized around a core of Scotland, France, Germany and Spain (Italy could join, too, if they dump Berlusconi).


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 04 November 2004 03:48 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Skdadl, if Britain as a whole doesn't dump Blair / distance itself from Bush, what do you think are the chances Scotland will separate?

The Scots have always had much closer ties to the continent than the Angles. If Britain as a whole can't be moved, I would love to see the power in "old Europe" reorganized and revitalized around a core of Scotland, France, Germany and Spain (Italy could join, too, if they dump Berlusconi).


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 November 2004 04:44 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Somehow I don't see Scottish independence happening that fast or all at once or, unfortunately, because of Blair and the war.

I'm sort of half-thinking that Blair won't be leading Labour in the next election, but it's hard to tell from this far away. Everyone says that Gordon Brown (chancellor of the Exchequer) has been working hard since before the Iraq invasion to say nothing on the topic at all, which suggests he sees himself as leader in waiting.

Maybe Labourites were waiting to see the outcome of the U.S. election -- ha! "maybe"! d'ye think? -- before they decided how to jump on their not-so-beloved leader. British caucuses can get rid of their leaders very fast -- remember Mrs Thatcher? Gone in hours, as soon as a couple of members in her divided caucus switched sides.

Now that Bush is back in, I imagine that the pressure will be on to dump Tony from dissidents in the party and caucus. But the war is such an unknown; and what if there was an al-Qaeda strike in Britain?

Anyway, we should start watching British papers more closely, I guess, to get a sense of how strong the dissidents have become.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca