Hip, Hip, HOORAY! One fascist leader down! Let's see if this changes anything in Britain... http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gordonbrown/story/0,,2110293,00.html
i doubt it'll change anything. he's already stated that he considers it in the nation's best interest to maintain a strong relationship with the american president.
I guess the Brits don't like us yanks calling their PM Blair a king, eh? Well he SURE acts like one. and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be one, no? As far as British foreign policy goes, Blair ruled like a King, never once not getting what he wanted, right? Except when it came to asking favors of King Bush, then he was shown to be just a little King of the poodles...
the duck that reminds me of a film i once watched about some fuckin redneck sherirf who thought he was the fuckin bees knees man and when it pissed down the roof leaked like fuck then i believe clint wasted the **** ........but yeah yer right skip the goverment in england are in coherience with that fucker bush ..........its time for the good people to wake up
i'm looking forward to it. some og the things of this forum will be encouraged like recycling, making one's own clothing, saving electricity and being good to the environment cos Gordon Brown doesn't like to waste his money if he can help it.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's resignation after a decade in power was forced in part by voter anger over his support for the U.S.-led war and British media has been buzzing with talk that Brown may speed up the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq to assuage the public. "We have absolutely no such understanding. We believe there will be continuity within the UK government over the approach to Iraq and Afghanistan," the official said. "No, I would not look at any precipitate, unilateral or sudden departure here. We do not believe we can afford to leave Iraq," the official said. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL2159603520070521?feedType=RSS&rpc=22
It's not that the British can't afford to leave Iraq, it's that Royal Dutch Shell and BP can't afford to leave Iraq. It's all about OIL MONEY for FILTHY RICH BRITISH INDUSTRIALISTS! But hey, they're not about to throw one of their Princes into the fray, are they? The monarchy gets very special treatment in Britain, they don't even have to fight if it's too dangerous for their children...
what exactly is the purpose of the royal family anyway? i don't get it. weren't te royals historically the military and economic leaders? but now a prince can't go fight? it used to be a duty, right?
Once upon a time, back in the days of Camelot, British royalty used to lead their armies in battle. Today they, like America, depend upon an army of mercenaries to do the dirty work for their Capitalist masters. Royalty can't be bothered to get their robes into a bunch over it anymore. It's just unbecoming a royal to go out and KILL some imagined enemy who presents absolutely no threat to them personally.
Same thing as always, I guess. Noble-born youths in Roman armies were given roles as commanding officers over the more experienced battle veterans because of their bloodline.
*cough* texaco halliburton Exxon Mobil.. need I go on? Yeah, send the Royals into battle.. good way to thin out the numbers, eventually we'll get a king that's not an inbred haemophiliac wanker.
Those are American companies. We're discussing Blair and his patrons, the British Petroleum Industry.
yeah, we've got loads of threads to read about bush and american companies. bp is quite the monolithic company even here. my husband is a mapper, he maps pipelines and utilities, mostly for BP. they're just THROWING MONEY at everything they can so that it doesn't look like they're posting record profits, too.
From what I've heard, BP has sorely neglected their refineries, far worse than any other company. They're just reaping those record profits to fatten their big ass shareholders. Perhaps now they realize they need to invest in their infrastructure. God forbid they were to put money out for SAFETY rather than dividends.
goodness gracious, they put on a hyperactive SHOW about safety. i used to work for a company that just built housing fr their wellheads, and yu can't even enter the plant without watching innumerable videos, passing a test and wearing a hard hat. they treat their female employees well, though, i have to say. but i get suspicious. i've been to their durango refinery quite a few times, and i have to say, they freak the fuck out over a lot of stuff.
Blair said a very long time ago he was leaving - I do not think it had much to do with the Iraq war. I was watching a documentary last night and the night before [Rise and fall of Blair]. It goes much deeper than that - I think on Iraq they were pretty much solid. He [Brown] will obviously be the leader who ''Brings the troops home'' but I doubt it will be any quicker than is being envisaged already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_BhhTZvjB8 Many Royals have ''gone to war'' in the recent past. Prince Harry wanted to go and may still go - but the dicision is not his.
King Blair has officially stepped down from Prime Minister. We now have Gordon Brown. I think things are going to get worse. Gordon is someone I would never have voted for even if he was the only MP on Earth
I'm beginning to have my own reservations about the change of leadership too. Especially when you hear of the people he's poaching as in Quentin Davis for his cabinet. That's not to say Blair wasn't doing the same when Chris Patton was approached sometime ago. I feel that political apathy may have to be the first line attack in a truly changing society, next maybe it needs to be riots again for any real contrustive attention is given back to the common (man), Ok I'm just using old language, call me a sexist!
I honestly think that Tony Blair has been a pretty good leader besides the Iraqi War decision. Also, he helped unite the Northern Irish people of DUP and Sinn Féin into parliament. Also, the unemployment rate has dropped and he has brought awareness to global warming (unlike Bush). I would stop moaning about our leader, and think more about yours.
I think his style was more presidential than monarchical, something fairly new in British politics - parliament was significantly sidelined, partly because of Labour's landslide majorities. It was very much a cabinet rather than a parliamentary government, and very much a personality driven cabinet - you went along with Blairism or you quit. Be interesting to see what Brown does with his style of government but as one of the key architects of the New Labour project and someone who has backed Blair on just about everything including Iraq, it seems unlikely things will change in any noticeable way in terms of policy.