King Blair is Gone! Long Live King Brown!

if you did give me a signed statement by Thatcher, i would apologise to you and say you were right.

but i give up this argument. there's no getting through to you and it's only to my detriment.
free speech my arse.

 

Blair could (and did) do what he wanted. We elect a party to represent us but don't have any say in what they choose to do.... No we didn't elect Brown as leader because in this country we do not elect a leader of a party. We elect our local MPs and the party itself elects its leader. Brown's constituents elected Brown, just like Blair's constituents elected Blair, just like the other sitting MPs were elected by their local consituencies. The Labour Party elected Blair leader in 1994 and the Labour party selected Brown as its leader in 2007. That's the way it works here.

Yes, Brown is still committed to the war, he has been a supporter of it from the start. Who knows what his handling of the situation will be? But it's not going to be a radical change in direction, that's for sure. He was an architect of the New Labour project and is ideologically almost indistinguishable from Blair. Again, something I pointed out earlier in the thread. I doubt he enjoys being lumbered with this debacle but he was the second most important figure in the cabinet that went to war in the first place.

Who does? The civilians killed by terrorist attacks deserve to be killed? Is that really what you mean?

 

I think I already have?

 

Of course, but British civilians deserve to be killed no more than Iraqi civilians. All those killed are the innocent victims of terrorism be it state sponsored or no.

 

The leaders won't get their "karma", they will go on leading lives of comfort and privelege unaffected by the decisions they enact. Neither will a few hundreds of thousands of Brits and Americans die. Certainly not in terrorist attacks. A few tens, a few hundreds, here and there, maybe even thousands on very rare occasions like 9/11. But in the countries we invade civilians do die by the hundreds of thousands.

We've demonstrated and spoken out against the war from the start, I will refuse to vote for anyone who supported it, the leaders acted against our wishes. I can't see much else those opposed could possibly have done to prevent it. As you pointed out yourself they have a monopoly of power and can do what they want.

 

All for that secret clause, which makes more sense the more I think about it.

Who would know about it? Just the President and Prime Minister? No, there would have to be other cabinet members who'd know about it. Gordon Brown was for the war. Why? He obviously knew about it, being Tony Blair's right-hand man, and had to come out as supporting the war to cover it up. For all we know every cabinet member who supported the war may have been doing it for this reason.

Then when Blair resigns, the reigns are handed to Brown...a man who says he supports the war (as he already knows about the clause)...and he picks up from where Blair left off, supporting the US in the war and keeping to the agreement stated in the contract.

My only question now is, what can we do to bring this secret into the open and force the government to come clean, sparking off anger that we were indeed being the "lapdog" to Bush and bringing down the case for the UK's involvement in the war from the inside out?

 

I think all this can be explained perfectly well in the absence of this secret clause. And as you say, the entire cabinet would have to be "in on it" so those who resigned in protest against the war such as Clare Short who spoke out against Blair's decision would know. Such a vocal critic of the war not mentioning this fact?

It's implausible.

 

too right. it seems like honeyfugle has now been banned for daring to argue with His Majesty Skip. I expect I'll get banned too for pointing this out. Frankly I don't give a toss.

 

I'm not sure about the US not going to war if they'd been alone, but it certainly did help that they had an ally. Imagine if Britain had been against the use of armed force...would that have been the whole of Europe? I don't know which European countries supported the war, so I can't say for certain. And as you said, it was a morale boost for the US too...someone helping argue their case, as it were.

If you look at it, there must have been some bad feelings towards Britain in the US after their reluctance to get involved with Vietnam. A possible secret clause to cement Britain as an ally in any future war where the US deemed it necessary...and the US government's refusal to do anything about American citizens funding the IRA in the eighties.

 

This argument and banning random people because they're 'repeating themselves' is getting boring and turning the UK forum slightly tenuous now. The UK forum isn't used to fighting between friends, nor banning people; we're a close community within this website, and good friends outside of it.

Can we lock this thread to prevent causing arguments or losing members of our community? or you can move it to the Politics forum, or something please?

 

i think personally that arguing can be a positive thing, so long as people take it with a pinch of salt. no one is forcing anyone to change their opinions. merely expressing their own. and besides, from my humble point of view, noone is forced to join in any said argument, and can leave at anytime. as pointed out in times gone by, it is an internet forum, if you leave an argument midway noone is going to slate you, and if they do, does it really matter. ive argued with family, with bosses at work and at times with friends. often we both leave the arguement still carrying our original views and carry on as friends. it doesnt mean that we can never speak again.

just the humble point of view of an old forumer