It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Churchill v Blair?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Could Tony Blair become the greatest prime minister Britain has ever seen?

This may seem a WOW statement, but, if he succeeds in creating a better Africa, and defeats the "War on Terror", and help's our "generation" through these troubled times, as did Churchill.

You never know we could be voting on Tv in tears to come!

Would like to hear some views.




posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Only the sane amongst the anti-war movement can defeat the misnomer "War On Terror".

I would give the Churchill-Blair fight to Churchill, who had a better full nelson lock.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Who knows? In time, views can be altered, things can be propagandized in his favour(As has probably been done for Churchill).
I would think most people would look back on Churchill with more fondness, he won a World War, Tony is fighting a war that barely makes sense.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Anyone who can defeat "The War on Terror" and bring some sense back into US/UK counterterror policy deserves to be recognized as great. Tony Blair is clearly not the guy, though.

-koji K.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   

There wouldn't even be an Iraq unless Winston hadn't drawn it up on a cocktail napkin at his gentleman's club.
Comparing the two is the best laugh I've had today, because there simply isn't any. Churchill was a colossis, Blair's a pissant.
Thanks, Veritas.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Blair is an historic British Figure, if people like it or not. He has seen the Labour Party to three straight victories, something which many people thought would never happen and through all three terms kept a majority which he could work with (as 66 is enough).

However him and Churchill are two very different men. Churchill had to govern Britain during one of our Darkest Hours, Blair on the other hand is not the smartest Military leader. He went into action in a War the people were not for and this is bad politics. He also sided with a man who would never "repay" us for our actions (Bush) and pushed us more away from Europe which is one of the things we don't need.

However his reforms for our Nation have on the most part been good. I can remember when he first got into power and the Conservative(Tory) Government before him.



posted on Jul, 6 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
As Odium says the very fact that Tony Blair has been a 3 times in a row Labour PM is sufficient alone to guarantee his place in British political history.
Then there is the strong probability that there will be a 4th Labour government in a row.

His government will IMO be remembered for this (record) long and sustained period of econmic stability and growth. When it goes people will value it.

His government and his personal leadership on the issue of debt relief for the poorest nations will be historically remembered IMO and several domestic issues (like the child bond for instance) will IMO be remembered.

Of note was his personal bravery going to Lybia and meeting Gadaffi. If there is a sea-change to go on in the ME this will undoubtedly be seen as part of it.

Given time I also think Blair's maintenance of the 'Atlantic alliance' despite the actions of Bush and his neo-con crowds' provocation (not to mention the crass partisan insanity of the British rights' attempts to exploit the resultant wave of British anti-Americanism) will be valued as the greater good.

Churchill was no great peacetime leader actually, his 'luck' was to be a great wartime leader during a world war.



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Even though I don't like Blairs politics I can't bash his three term achievement, that will set his name in the history books..or maybe Iraq will, guess we'll have to wait and see

Churchill and Blair are different leaders of different times but I think Churchill was the better leader of the two, his wit in particular is brilliant.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
1. Tony Blair will be yet another prime minister to have sold arms to Africa. Africa spends more money on arms than it receives in aid.
2. He will be the guy who sent troops into Iraq. History is against us on that one. Saddam killed 350,000 of his own people through oppression but the last Gulf War cost 250,000. How many has this one cost? We don't know because Tony Blair joined forces with a country that doesn’t do civilian body counts.
3. Tony Blair will have been prime minister during a time when year on year arms was Britain national export. He will have lied-distorted the truth behind sending his peoples troops to war.
He would have done nothing for the war on terror other than act as an extension to George Bush's foreign policy.
He would have done nothing for Africa than sit on MTV and receive praise from Bob Guildoff (a man who despite his appearances) now owns a media company worth over two hundred and eighty million pounds.
4. To be fair he would (along with other countries) have cancelled some African debt (mostly there so that they could arms). But if he really cared this would have happened in 1997 or soon afterwards.
5. As the guy who one an election on 38% of the vote, he will go down in history as a divisive figure. Churchill’s support is hardly divisive. For this reason alone he will never go down in history with Churchill almost no matter what he does from now on.

When people like me hear...
"Could Tony Blair become the greatest prime minister Britain has ever seen?"
We think: "Can pigs fly?"
There's just too many of us who will remember him in that way.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984

1. Tony Blair will be yet another prime minister to have sold arms to Africa. Africa spends more money on arms than it receives in aid.


- Firstly Blair sold them nothing, the UK defence industry is a private concern with gov regulation.....and secondly are you saying (in all instances) arms sales are bad?
Would you rather the UK stopped and left it all to the USA, Russia, Chaina or France?


2. He will be the guy who sent troops into Iraq. History is against us on that one. Saddam killed 350,000 of his own people through oppression but the last Gulf War cost 250,000. How many has this one cost? We don't know because Tony Blair joined forces with a country that doesn’t do civilian body counts.


- It's a fair disagreement.
But you do realise the country seems fairly evenly split (depending on the question asked) over this one?


3. Tony Blair will have been prime minister during a time when year on year arms was Britain national export. He will have lied-distorted the truth behind sending his peoples troops to war.
He would have done nothing for the war on terror other than act as an extension to George Bush's foreign policy.
He would have done nothing for Africa than sit on MTV and receive praise from Bob Guildoff (a man who despite his appearances) now owns a media company worth over two hundred and eighty million pounds.


- So Blair maintained the 'atlantic alliance' and went with the US to Iraq.....what's the difference with this point and the last?

As for Africa you seem intent on a sly smear/dig at Bob Geldof for some reason and you merely assert Blair "would have done nothing"; except he did. He did a lot.


4. To be fair he would (along with other countries) have cancelled some African debt (mostly there so that they could arms). But if he really cared this would have happened in 1997 or soon afterwards.


- Er, except he was the first (alone and not with other countries) to seriously push this process, it took a lot of time, effort and persuasion and they have come a hell of a long way, to dismiss it as alomost worthless or a cynical "if they really cared" is simplistic in the extreme and plain ignorant of the process that has been required to get this going.


5. As the guy who one an election on 38% of the vote, he will go down in history as a divisive figure.


- You have got to be kidding.....after 2 thumping landslides?
The only people who are going to remember TB's premiership as "divisive" are tories, some of whom have a weird pathological hatred of the guy and the Labour party.

The most divisive PM (by far) in modern times was Thatcher, I think she'll come to mind for far more British people when you want to recall a divisive PM.


Churchill’s support is hardly divisive. For this reason alone he will never go down in history with Churchill almost no matter what he does from now on.


- Churchill's 'good fortune' was to be a winner and forever linked to successful WW2; no-one remembers his lack-lustre post-WW2 peacetime gov and few have any clue about his disasterous pre-WW2 gov experiences.

Check out Churchill's comments as the pension was introduced for divisive!




top topics



 
0

log in

join