The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This topic is not meant to cause offence so please accept my apologies if it does.
With the impending war on Iraq seeming to get ever closer Tony Blair has taken it upon himself to appear on numerous TV shows to answer questions from 'Jo public'. In last nights (10/03/03) program with Trevor McDonald he again took harsh criticism from the audience (who then gave a disheartened and embarrassingly slow clap at the end). What struck me as quite bizarre though was the eldish woman with white/grey hair who went on to say that if we go to war against Iraq her life will never be the same. Now she wasn't an Iraqi herself, and had no relatives out there which leads me to believe that she is another person just saying 'No' to war before even knowing all the facts.
Now I'm not saying that I'm for or against war (as you'll see if you read the whole topic), but I am fed up of stupid teenagers and middle-aged people alike who are saying no to war before even knowing the facts. A main topic of conversation has been that we need to give Iraq more time than the resolutions are allowing, thus giving Iraq more than a couple of weeks to disarm. What is failed to be acknowledged is that a resolution was passed in 1991 and 1992 after the Gulf War for Iraq to fully disarm then...this was 12 years ago. It does not take 12 years to disarm. Russia did it in 6 years and my guess is, is that Russia probably had slightly more fire power than Iraq.
Another claim from those who are anti war is that thousands of innocent people will die. Whilst this may be true, ask yourselves why they will die? The advanced technological weapons that will be used will be 98% successful in hitting their targets, and it needs to be remembered that any attack from the allies will not be aimed at civilians. If there are a large amount of civilian deaths it will be from Saddam Hussain using human shields around his weapon dumps. There is also the threat that if there is a revolt from his people he will use chemical and biological weapons on his own people, as he did before in killing 5,000 Curds.
Many people are also blocking out the fact that Saddam Hussain, being the tyrant that he is, is killing his people every day. If you are suspected of not supporting him, or breaking the law the penalty in most cases would be your life. It is a well documented fact that he is known to give people acid baths, shoot people in a line up, blindfold people with their hands tied behind their backs and then let the soldiers beat people to death in a horrific manor, rape by broken glass bottle for women who are suspected of adultery, as well as using his chemical and biological weapons on them. So if your going to turn around and say that innocent lives could be lost, what the hell do you think is happening right now!
The weapons that Saddam is saying that he hasn't got is something that the weapons inspectors are obviously trying to locate, sounds simple? Well an example of how difficult this is proving is that when the weapons inspectors were checking the weapons of Iraq in 1992-1996 (before the weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq) they had counted 30,000 missile warheads. In the latest lot of weapons inspections Hans Blix and his team have uncovered 16. This means that there are 29,984 missing! The report that was sent to George Bush detailing the weapons that Iraq has was some 13,000 pages long. Now ask yourself how many pages it takes to write....'we have this many so and so's located here, and this many there' etc. It certainly doesn't take 13,000 pages....maybe 5-10 at the most...even in a large font!
So from this it probably sounds like I'm all for war and that we can't get in there quick enough, well thats not the case as there are several questions that need to be put to George Bush and Tony Blair that are not being asked by the people in the audiences of the recent TV shows who have no geographical or historical knowledge what-so-ever. My first question to them would have to be....why Iraq? I would expect the answer to be that Iraq is a threat to the safety of people who live with the freedom of speech and all of that, but what I want to know is that if it's because Iraq is dangerous because of its weapons, why are we just concentrating on Iraq? Last year India and Pakistan were at logger heads on the verge of NUCLEAR war after they both got nuclear technology, South Korea has now recently got NUCLEAR weapons and has been testing then in Japanese waters, the French until only recently were testing NUCLEAR weapons in the Pacific...yet it's the Iraqis that are the threat to us??? If we are trying to get Saddam out of power because he is a threat, are we then going to move onto India/Pakistan/Korea?
The factor of the human rights and the torture/killings that goes on in Iraq as I mention above is no better than what is currently going on in Zimbabwe under Murgabe. The UN passed a resolution that Murgabe is not allowed to step foot in Europe in protest of what is happening to the people of Zimbabwe. Yet the next minute Jack Chirac has invited him to France, lays on a banquet and treats him as if he has done no wrong. Jack Chirac as a politician has no spine, as documented in the British press over the last few weeks, the reason behind the fact he doesn't want to go to war is because he has known Saddam since the 70's when the two stuck a deal for low oil prices for France. They then had regular meetings and were welcome in one anothers country at any time! It's then therefore obvious that Jack Chirac has broken many UN resolutions himself, but has been left unpunished for doing so. He seemingly has only escaped because he doesn't kill his own people, which as Murgabe is showing wouldn't make much difference anyway.
Therefore, if the only reasons that Blair and Bush can come up with is that Iraq is a threat, is that Iraq is a threat because of its weapons, or that it is renowned for poor human rights, then if Iraq is invaded and Saddam is toppled, it must not stop there and Korea, India, Pakistan, France should all be next.
We shouldn't forget the excuses that have been created by the public in light of the war, giving reason for an attack on Iraq. The biggest one of all is that due to fuel shortages in the USA and high fuel prices in the UK, the only reason that they want to invade Iraq is to take control of some of the large quantities of oil in the middle east. For those of you that haven't bothered to investigate this route, the UK is an exporter of oil and so would have little or no need for it, and although the USA are large consumers of oil and suffering a shortage, it'd be more cost effective and less of a risk for the USA to sort out the political crises currently devastating Venezuela, who are the 8th largest oil supplier in the world. So if this is your argument, do us all a favour and actually find a reasonable argument that has some weight behind it.
So what if we go to war? Well, France and Russia have already decided to use their Veto (meaning their taking a political backseat and don't want to vote on the matter), and with 4 other countries looking doubtful it is unlikely that any war will go ahead with the UN's backing. Therefore the war will be fought by the USA and UK forces. This would then almost certainly mean the end of the UN, as happened to the League of Nations around the time of WWII.
One final point;- What is interesting about Blair's interview yesterday is that he pointed out that we live in a democracy, so surely we should have the right to vote for or against war! Either way, make up your own mind but remember do we have to wait for a devastating attack from killing thousands, as on Sept 11th, before people want action, or are we going to war for our benefit rather than that of the Iraqi people.
Thanks for reading
With the impending war on Iraq seeming to get ever closer Tony Blair has taken it upon himself to appear on numerous TV shows to answer questions from 'Jo public'. In last nights (10/03/03) program with Trevor McDonald he again took harsh criticism from the audience (who then gave a disheartened and embarrassingly slow clap at the end). What struck me as quite bizarre though was the eldish woman with white/grey hair who went on to say that if we go to war against Iraq her life will never be the same. Now she wasn't an Iraqi herself, and had no relatives out there which leads me to believe that she is another person just saying 'No' to war before even knowing all the facts.
Now I'm not saying that I'm for or against war (as you'll see if you read the whole topic), but I am fed up of stupid teenagers and middle-aged people alike who are saying no to war before even knowing the facts. A main topic of conversation has been that we need to give Iraq more time than the resolutions are allowing, thus giving Iraq more than a couple of weeks to disarm. What is failed to be acknowledged is that a resolution was passed in 1991 and 1992 after the Gulf War for Iraq to fully disarm then...this was 12 years ago. It does not take 12 years to disarm. Russia did it in 6 years and my guess is, is that Russia probably had slightly more fire power than Iraq.
Another claim from those who are anti war is that thousands of innocent people will die. Whilst this may be true, ask yourselves why they will die? The advanced technological weapons that will be used will be 98% successful in hitting their targets, and it needs to be remembered that any attack from the allies will not be aimed at civilians. If there are a large amount of civilian deaths it will be from Saddam Hussain using human shields around his weapon dumps. There is also the threat that if there is a revolt from his people he will use chemical and biological weapons on his own people, as he did before in killing 5,000 Curds.
Many people are also blocking out the fact that Saddam Hussain, being the tyrant that he is, is killing his people every day. If you are suspected of not supporting him, or breaking the law the penalty in most cases would be your life. It is a well documented fact that he is known to give people acid baths, shoot people in a line up, blindfold people with their hands tied behind their backs and then let the soldiers beat people to death in a horrific manor, rape by broken glass bottle for women who are suspected of adultery, as well as using his chemical and biological weapons on them. So if your going to turn around and say that innocent lives could be lost, what the hell do you think is happening right now!
The weapons that Saddam is saying that he hasn't got is something that the weapons inspectors are obviously trying to locate, sounds simple? Well an example of how difficult this is proving is that when the weapons inspectors were checking the weapons of Iraq in 1992-1996 (before the weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq) they had counted 30,000 missile warheads. In the latest lot of weapons inspections Hans Blix and his team have uncovered 16. This means that there are 29,984 missing! The report that was sent to George Bush detailing the weapons that Iraq has was some 13,000 pages long. Now ask yourself how many pages it takes to write....'we have this many so and so's located here, and this many there' etc. It certainly doesn't take 13,000 pages....maybe 5-10 at the most...even in a large font!
So from this it probably sounds like I'm all for war and that we can't get in there quick enough, well thats not the case as there are several questions that need to be put to George Bush and Tony Blair that are not being asked by the people in the audiences of the recent TV shows who have no geographical or historical knowledge what-so-ever. My first question to them would have to be....why Iraq? I would expect the answer to be that Iraq is a threat to the safety of people who live with the freedom of speech and all of that, but what I want to know is that if it's because Iraq is dangerous because of its weapons, why are we just concentrating on Iraq? Last year India and Pakistan were at logger heads on the verge of NUCLEAR war after they both got nuclear technology, South Korea has now recently got NUCLEAR weapons and has been testing then in Japanese waters, the French until only recently were testing NUCLEAR weapons in the Pacific...yet it's the Iraqis that are the threat to us??? If we are trying to get Saddam out of power because he is a threat, are we then going to move onto India/Pakistan/Korea?
The factor of the human rights and the torture/killings that goes on in Iraq as I mention above is no better than what is currently going on in Zimbabwe under Murgabe. The UN passed a resolution that Murgabe is not allowed to step foot in Europe in protest of what is happening to the people of Zimbabwe. Yet the next minute Jack Chirac has invited him to France, lays on a banquet and treats him as if he has done no wrong. Jack Chirac as a politician has no spine, as documented in the British press over the last few weeks, the reason behind the fact he doesn't want to go to war is because he has known Saddam since the 70's when the two stuck a deal for low oil prices for France. They then had regular meetings and were welcome in one anothers country at any time! It's then therefore obvious that Jack Chirac has broken many UN resolutions himself, but has been left unpunished for doing so. He seemingly has only escaped because he doesn't kill his own people, which as Murgabe is showing wouldn't make much difference anyway.
Therefore, if the only reasons that Blair and Bush can come up with is that Iraq is a threat, is that Iraq is a threat because of its weapons, or that it is renowned for poor human rights, then if Iraq is invaded and Saddam is toppled, it must not stop there and Korea, India, Pakistan, France should all be next.
We shouldn't forget the excuses that have been created by the public in light of the war, giving reason for an attack on Iraq. The biggest one of all is that due to fuel shortages in the USA and high fuel prices in the UK, the only reason that they want to invade Iraq is to take control of some of the large quantities of oil in the middle east. For those of you that haven't bothered to investigate this route, the UK is an exporter of oil and so would have little or no need for it, and although the USA are large consumers of oil and suffering a shortage, it'd be more cost effective and less of a risk for the USA to sort out the political crises currently devastating Venezuela, who are the 8th largest oil supplier in the world. So if this is your argument, do us all a favour and actually find a reasonable argument that has some weight behind it.
So what if we go to war? Well, France and Russia have already decided to use their Veto (meaning their taking a political backseat and don't want to vote on the matter), and with 4 other countries looking doubtful it is unlikely that any war will go ahead with the UN's backing. Therefore the war will be fought by the USA and UK forces. This would then almost certainly mean the end of the UN, as happened to the League of Nations around the time of WWII.
One final point;- What is interesting about Blair's interview yesterday is that he pointed out that we live in a democracy, so surely we should have the right to vote for or against war! Either way, make up your own mind but remember do we have to wait for a devastating attack from killing thousands, as on Sept 11th, before people want action, or are we going to war for our benefit rather than that of the Iraqi people.
Thanks for reading
Page:
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Soliders are brainwashed slaves for the
> most part, that's what drill instructors are for.
from where im standing it looks like soldiers are just looking for the thrill of battle and to kill, and maybe about 30% of the reason is for their country. some patriotic men may be ready and all for the war but most soldiers are out there sh****ng theirselves (even running out of loo roll).
> Soliders are brainwashed slaves for the
> most part, that's what drill instructors are for.
from where im standing it looks like soldiers are just looking for the thrill of battle and to kill, and maybe about 30% of the reason is for their country. some patriotic men may be ready and all for the war but most soldiers are out there sh****ng theirselves (even running out of loo roll).
The problem I have with Fox News is that one of the people that controls programme content is John Ellis.
He and 3 others decide the major news stories to be run and the importance of stories. Which would be all good except for the fact that John Ellis is the 1st cousin of George W and Jeb Bush.
There may be some validity to their stories, but as soon as I hear "Fox", I think "uh-huh, right" and it morphs in Al-Jazeer TV News.
The thing is, no matter how rational we may discuss, I think by the weekend the US will have done what it wants to and we'll be right behind them.
Blair should have done the same as France and Germany and Russia and China and all the other countries, held off committing to anything until they could honestly and truthfully say that a case for war had been made.
But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what sane, clear-thinking people want and that saddens me.
I no more wish my views to be expressed by Tony Blair any more than my cousin/aunt and uncle wish their views to be expressed by George W Bush.
We're held hostage by warthugs and greed.
And I'll tell you the exact moment this morning I realised just how corrupt this "war against terror" is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2842315.stm
Shell and BP already in discussion with Downing Street on how to par-up the oil fields afterwards.
Winning of hearts and minds?
Yeah, whatever.
He and 3 others decide the major news stories to be run and the importance of stories. Which would be all good except for the fact that John Ellis is the 1st cousin of George W and Jeb Bush.
There may be some validity to their stories, but as soon as I hear "Fox", I think "uh-huh, right" and it morphs in Al-Jazeer TV News.
The thing is, no matter how rational we may discuss, I think by the weekend the US will have done what it wants to and we'll be right behind them.
Blair should have done the same as France and Germany and Russia and China and all the other countries, held off committing to anything until they could honestly and truthfully say that a case for war had been made.
But at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what sane, clear-thinking people want and that saddens me.
I no more wish my views to be expressed by Tony Blair any more than my cousin/aunt and uncle wish their views to be expressed by George W Bush.
We're held hostage by warthugs and greed.
And I'll tell you the exact moment this morning I realised just how corrupt this "war against terror" is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2842315.stm
Shell and BP already in discussion with Downing Street on how to par-up the oil fields afterwards.
Winning of hearts and minds?
Yeah, whatever.
The questions is, how do you (not you personally) interpret 1441 ?
No country which signed that was under any illusion what it meant and allowed, yet they signed and voted, and now make the fuss. Whilst Iraq is co operating more, there are many pieces of evidence that shout "Material Breach".
Anyone see the interview at the weekend with the Republican Guard defector, claiming all the forces would be safe as they'd hide in bunkers ? He should see this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 0,2933,80797,00.html
That's one BIG bomb. The page also includes more of Rumsfeld's comments on UK involvement, and many have not been shown on the newsbytes this morning, they make it seem less likely that the UK will back away from this.
Actually Tony's in a mess. He backs down, loses votes. Goes ahead, loses votes. Maybe all this will motivate people to actualy vote next time...probably not.
No country which signed that was under any illusion what it meant and allowed, yet they signed and voted, and now make the fuss. Whilst Iraq is co operating more, there are many pieces of evidence that shout "Material Breach".
Anyone see the interview at the weekend with the Republican Guard defector, claiming all the forces would be safe as they'd hide in bunkers ? He should see this... http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 0,2933,80797,00.html
That's one BIG bomb. The page also includes more of Rumsfeld's comments on UK involvement, and many have not been shown on the newsbytes this morning, they make it seem less likely that the UK will back away from this.
Actually Tony's in a mess. He backs down, loses votes. Goes ahead, loses votes. Maybe all this will motivate people to actualy vote next time...probably not.
Whilst in principle I agree with your points, the speaker was the former Attorney General, legal advisor to the government, and as such I'm taking his opinions and views a tad more seriously - no offence.
He was't saying we should prosecute, he was highlighting the legal dangers of pressing ahead without a resolution and, technically and legally, British soldiers would be viewed the same as Nazis - not in ideology but in their actions of waging warfare without a correct and proper mandate.
He was't saying we should prosecute, he was highlighting the legal dangers of pressing ahead without a resolution and, technically and legally, British soldiers would be viewed the same as Nazis - not in ideology but in their actions of waging warfare without a correct and proper mandate.
Goatboy wrote:
> applicable as each individual has a "moral responsibility".
Moral responsibility indeed. Soliders are brainwashed slaves for the most part, that's what drill instructors are for. To smash out any residual resistance to standard military doctrine.
Morality doesn't come into it. Sarge says jump, you say how high.
> applicable as each individual has a "moral responsibility".
Moral responsibility indeed. Soliders are brainwashed slaves for the most part, that's what drill instructors are for. To smash out any residual resistance to standard military doctrine.
Morality doesn't come into it. Sarge says jump, you say how high.
Blair probably won't take the chance to get out, it's worse than actually going to war in the long term for his career, the word "spineless" comes to mind.
Talk of war crimes is, I feel, pointless. For starters Bush made sure that American forces are not governed by the new UN appointed world court (that began this week, and nobody covered it in the news ??) , and if anyone tries to press for UK soldiers to be tried then the UK will just pull out as well, followed by other countries.
Whilst soldiers have a moral responsbility, comparing the actions of normal troops in warfare to those of the Nazi's is simply not on, in my opinion, and it is an insult to our own armed forces. They're not going there to round up people and shoot them or to wipe out every muslim, they are going there to disarm Iraq, and end Saddam's regime. Besides, the government's own law team, and America's, have both declared that an attack would not be against international law. Whilst I don't want to downplay the program you watched, the problem with that kind of thing is you get a group of pre chosen people with known views, guided by a presenter with a set agenda, and no opposition to speak of.
What is needed - and won't happen - is unity. "United we stand, divided we fall" may be an old cliche, but it's still true, and you don't get much more divided than the world, and people, are today.
To quote Tony Blair from yesterday; "It's not safe".
Talk of war crimes is, I feel, pointless. For starters Bush made sure that American forces are not governed by the new UN appointed world court (that began this week, and nobody covered it in the news ??) , and if anyone tries to press for UK soldiers to be tried then the UK will just pull out as well, followed by other countries.
Whilst soldiers have a moral responsbility, comparing the actions of normal troops in warfare to those of the Nazi's is simply not on, in my opinion, and it is an insult to our own armed forces. They're not going there to round up people and shoot them or to wipe out every muslim, they are going there to disarm Iraq, and end Saddam's regime. Besides, the government's own law team, and America's, have both declared that an attack would not be against international law. Whilst I don't want to downplay the program you watched, the problem with that kind of thing is you get a group of pre chosen people with known views, guided by a presenter with a set agenda, and no opposition to speak of.
What is needed - and won't happen - is unity. "United we stand, divided we fall" may be an old cliche, but it's still true, and you don't get much more divided than the world, and people, are today.
To quote Tony Blair from yesterday; "It's not safe".
Was listening last night and this morning on Radio 4.
Latest developments?
Rumsfeld has said that they would continue, even without UK support. Jeff Hoon downplays this saying that UK could provide a back-up role.
So America is willing to do this themselves and Blair has an out.
And the presenters and guests also discussed the fact that should Blair go ahead without the 2nd resolution, he would be guilty of war-crimes under the Nuremburg principle of "war against peace" - British soldiers could be tried by the ICC for war-crimes and, as at Nuremburg, the following orders argument is not applicable as each individual has a "moral responsibility".
Latest developments?
Rumsfeld has said that they would continue, even without UK support. Jeff Hoon downplays this saying that UK could provide a back-up role.
So America is willing to do this themselves and Blair has an out.
And the presenters and guests also discussed the fact that should Blair go ahead without the 2nd resolution, he would be guilty of war-crimes under the Nuremburg principle of "war against peace" - British soldiers could be tried by the ICC for war-crimes and, as at Nuremburg, the following orders argument is not applicable as each individual has a "moral responsibility".
Rainier Wolfcastle wrote:
> What are your sources for such a claim?
>
> This isn't the 70's anymore. Any attack would surely primarily feature
> guided weapons. Now these go astray from time to time, but I doubt
> that the plan is to level Baghdad completely.
Actually, common sense suggests that, seeing as the shock and awe tactic involves dropping more ordinance in one night than in the entire Gulf War, there will be high civilian casualties, in large part down to The Iraqi army's tactic of hiding in the middile of the civilian population centres.
Whilst this is morally dreadful, you can kind of see the reasoning for it. In the open, they die, in the urban, they die but take civilians with them which pressures the agressor.
The other option is to take Baghdad by ground, and that's not a really good option, imagine the antics of Blackhawk Down on a city scale...not good.
However, claims that thousands will die from bombing do have little fact other than people's wilingness to imagine we'd bomb civilians on purpose, when it serves no aim. Once the war is over - and I'm certain many are no longer still thinking in terms of if there is a war - then allied forces will occupy the country for some time. Given that situation you want the people to like, or at least tolerate you, and to this end Gen. Franks has detailed the massive aid operation that will follow in the wake of an invasion. Something like 25% of the population lives on government food rations which contain no meat, vegetables or source of vitamins. US ration packs will be an effective tool following the war.
On the note of a war, it wouldn't surprise me to wake up one morning this week to find it's kicked off.....I don't think the US will go for a vote, but I'm frequently wrong so what the hey...
> What are your sources for such a claim?
>
> This isn't the 70's anymore. Any attack would surely primarily feature
> guided weapons. Now these go astray from time to time, but I doubt
> that the plan is to level Baghdad completely.
Actually, common sense suggests that, seeing as the shock and awe tactic involves dropping more ordinance in one night than in the entire Gulf War, there will be high civilian casualties, in large part down to The Iraqi army's tactic of hiding in the middile of the civilian population centres.
Whilst this is morally dreadful, you can kind of see the reasoning for it. In the open, they die, in the urban, they die but take civilians with them which pressures the agressor.
The other option is to take Baghdad by ground, and that's not a really good option, imagine the antics of Blackhawk Down on a city scale...not good.
However, claims that thousands will die from bombing do have little fact other than people's wilingness to imagine we'd bomb civilians on purpose, when it serves no aim. Once the war is over - and I'm certain many are no longer still thinking in terms of if there is a war - then allied forces will occupy the country for some time. Given that situation you want the people to like, or at least tolerate you, and to this end Gen. Franks has detailed the massive aid operation that will follow in the wake of an invasion. Something like 25% of the population lives on government food rations which contain no meat, vegetables or source of vitamins. US ration packs will be an effective tool following the war.
On the note of a war, it wouldn't surprise me to wake up one morning this week to find it's kicked off.....I don't think the US will go for a vote, but I'm frequently wrong so what the hey...
Unbeliever wrote:
> What i don't understand is how they propose to "disarm"
> Saddam by carpet bombing Baghdad with such ferocity that ANYONE living
> there will be decimated outright.
What are your sources for such a claim?
This isn't the 70's anymore. Any attack would surely primarily feature guided weapons. Now these go astray from time to time, but I doubt that the plan is to level Baghdad completely.
In the Gulf war 10% of the weapons used by the west were guided. Apparently the figure is likely to be 90% in the looming war.
This suggests that "Carpet Bombing" the Iraqi capital isn't dubya's plan.
> What i don't understand is how they propose to "disarm"
> Saddam by carpet bombing Baghdad with such ferocity that ANYONE living
> there will be decimated outright.
What are your sources for such a claim?
This isn't the 70's anymore. Any attack would surely primarily feature guided weapons. Now these go astray from time to time, but I doubt that the plan is to level Baghdad completely.
In the Gulf war 10% of the weapons used by the west were guided. Apparently the figure is likely to be 90% in the looming war.
This suggests that "Carpet Bombing" the Iraqi capital isn't dubya's plan.
All I'll say is this;
I watched the supposed program last night, and like most things of that nature it had no value at all, the clap, as rightly pointed out, was pathetic and sad, but probably boosted the ego's of a few people there, if nothing else.
The one thing that perplexes me is this;
Why, in the face of opposition, polls, against many people's opinions, does Blair continue ? I discountthe theories saying he's Bush's poodle because that kind of talk is blatantly desperate and somewhat stupid in my opinion. What's the real reason, or does he know more than he's letting on... ?
I watched the supposed program last night, and like most things of that nature it had no value at all, the clap, as rightly pointed out, was pathetic and sad, but probably boosted the ego's of a few people there, if nothing else.
The one thing that perplexes me is this;
Why, in the face of opposition, polls, against many people's opinions, does Blair continue ? I discountthe theories saying he's Bush's poodle because that kind of talk is blatantly desperate and somewhat stupid in my opinion. What's the real reason, or does he know more than he's letting on... ?
Page: