It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


OP/ED: Why I Believe Blair Should Resign.

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 09:58 PM
Well out here in the US I have never heard a single thing good about Blair. Everytime I hear about one of his decisions or his stance, I can't agree with it. Like the replica gun laws he wants. Despite the fact that I'm American I think our British friends here on ATS would be so much better off with someone else.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:31 PM
But Saddam was a baaad man. He gassed people and he tortured people and he did not treat Mr Bush's father nicely when Mr Bush's father wanted to be friends with him.

Goo goo ga ga.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 02:23 AM
The increased threat is possibly true but there's no way of being sure. I would certainly believe it increased al-queda's recruiting drive. However these statements and theories miss three points :

1. The threat would have increased anyway had the US gone into iraq alone which it had every intention of doing. The leaked memos show quite clearly that this was the case. The idea that the UK would have been safe is naive since we have many US air bases and US companies here.

2. The jihad existing prior to the invasion of Iraq anyway (I think New York knows about that !). Ooops that's inconvenient for the hate Blair brigade so let's not mentiuon this shall we.

3. The extremist muslims believe that the west is decadent and immoral and HAS to be destroyed and replaced with Islam. Again this has nothing to do with Iraq.

The use of Iraq by the extremists enables them to cause argument amongst the enemy (decadent west) which people here and John Bull above above have fallen for hook line and sinker. Splitting your enemy is a very old military tactic. Well done all you're making things worse for us and easier for the terrorists! Why don't these Muslims mention Darfur ? Hmmm how inconvenient that slaughter and ethnic cleansing carried out by MUSLIMS cannot be blamed on the west. So they don't mention it do they.

Blair had two choices:

A. Very bad and let US go it alone
B. Bad and try and get the US to go via the UN to appease the situation.

Thank god Blair choice option B unfortunately hatred for Blair from some quarters is so intense it blinds them to difficult political decisions that leaders sometimes have to make. I have often wondered where this hatred comes from and I suspect its jealousy and fear. Jealousy from traditional Labour supporters who see the most successful Labour government ever that is achievening considerable social and economic reform. You can't rely on the newspapers for that information you have to find it out for yourself. Every single school in Britain will be re-built or re-furbished in the next 15 years at a cost of 15billion. Was that headline news.....nope! Then there's fear from the traditional anti-labour supporters for exactly the same reason because they'll never get in power using alternate proposed policies but have to resort to the only chink in the Labour armour - the distorted analysis of Blair's decision on Iraq.

For those of you outside the UK you need to realise that the conservatives are currently inept and provide no good opposition to the government. So the newspapers have taken on this role, as well as most being anti-labour anyway. You will never get a true picture of the state of Britain from the press. Good news is rarely reported.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:00 AM
So your message is ' Don't criticise because you're helping the enemy' ?

Yeh, that's the moral pressure being put on the general public at the moment I'm pleased to see such a clear example. Again remember 85% believe Iraq was a major contributing factor not a small minority.

Your argument don't address the main point. I'll make it clearer.

Before Iraq there were no home grown suicide bombers. Directly as a result of Blair's Iraq War atleast 8 Britons have blown themselves and others up or tried to.

Is that blunt enough ?

These people probably had no intention before Iraq of being Muslim Extremists.

Spare us all the party political broadcast !

The media is against Labour ?? Don't make me laugh. Rupert Murdoch is nicely looked after by the New Labour "project" and he kindly reciprocates.

Blair needs to go because when a country is at war that country's people need to unite behind their leader.

Blair does not have that support.

So we need a new leader.

Despite the recent general election victory let's not forget that Blair only got 35 % of the vote (not a majority). Only 20% of the population voted for him.

Propping up a man who has brought this terrible spectre of Suicide bombers on the entire population through lies and deceit is ludicrous.

PS You a Labour Party Member ??

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:08 AM
To quote the great Sir Winston Churchill:

"Any man under thirty who is not a liberal has no heart. Any man over thirty who is not conservative has no brain."

It says it all really.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:16 AM

Originally posted by benjj
To quote the great Sir Winston Churchill:

"Any man under thirty who is not a liberal has no heart. Any man over thirty who is not conservative has no brain."

It says it all really.

Especially when you consider that Churchill was over 30 when he left the Conservative Party to join the Liberals and was about 50 when he swapped back.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:23 AM
To pick out one man to prove this point is not particularly representative of the way politicians operate, irrespective of their political leanings and associations.

Churchill, in many ways, was utterly unique in the way in which he rose to power. Had it not been for his exemplary handling of WWII he would have been remembered as little more than a political journeyman.

Don't get me wrong, Churchill is, in my eyes, probably the finest gentleman ever to grace the House of Commons, the finest military strategist prime minister, and most importantly, the finest leader of his public in a time of national crisis.

Using him to rally support for the Liberal Party is hardly fitting though as he himself would have associated himself with any party to get a seat.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:35 AM

Originally posted by benjj
To pick out one man to prove this point is not particularly representative of the way politicians operate, irrespective of their political leanings and associations.

You picked the man when you quoted him.

I only mentioned Churchill in the context that he replaced Chamberlain because Chamberlain was too closely associated with the policy that had precipitated WW2.

So too Blair is now associated with the policy that has turned British Muslims into suicide bombers.

He needs to be replaced so that Britain can unite behind a new leader which the entire country can back.

Blair must resign.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:46 AM
Yes, I did quote him, but only as a representative quote of a man switching parties to get a seat.

Don't get me wrong John, I agree that Blair must go. The man is a liar and a fraud, it's as simple as that.

We need another Churchill and we need one quickly.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:49 AM
Once again, someone has stepped up and blamed England's involvment in Iraq for this latest series of bombings and mayhem. Of course, it's true...BUT...please consider this...

Wasn't the bombing of that Disco in Bali blamed on Australia's involvment in East Timor, back in the eighties? Wasn't the bombings in Egypt blamed on "the world in general" for backing the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan? (only two out of the eighty eight killed were American. In fact, only eight were tourists. The rest were Egyptians)

If anything, these last bombings are proof that Al Qaida is scrambling to find targets and volunteers to do their dirty work.

Heck, it seems Al Qaida doesn't even make bombs like they used to.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 03:56 AM
Big difference.

The bombers that blew themselves up in London were British born.

They undertook their dispicable mission because of what happened in Iraq.

We are a nation divided with a divisive leader.

You make me sound like I'm in a tiny minority in criticing Blair. I'm part of the 85% that understand that these home grown suicide bombers are the direct product of Blair's foreign policy.

Uniting behind a leader that has failed is stupid.

The primary concern of a Prime Minister is to always act in the best interests of the UK. He has not and now Britons are taking violent action.

He is not the man to lead the UK in this time.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 04:18 AM

Originally posted by John bull 1
You make me sound like I'm in a tiny minority in criticing Blair. I'm part of the 85% that understand that these home grown suicide bombers are the direct product of Blair's foreign policy.

I vehemently disagree with this statement. I honestly believe that although we were wrong to go to war in Iraq that these bombings (or similar assaults) would still have been carried out on British soil.

Getting rid of Blair would do absolutely nothing to deter these extremist terrorists from wanting to have a pop at what was once the bastion of western civility and the original 'super power'. All getting rid of Blair would do would be to make a point that the British public will not stand being lied or deceived by their premier.

What we need, in today's 'terror-centric world', is a leader who is not afraid to make huge, seemingly un-pc actions to rid Britain of any kind of religious extremism and terrorist activities. If we have good reason to believe that all of the people recently arrested had a hand in organising or mounting the strikes against London then they should be hanged. Publically.

Just because these people are British born does not make them British citizens. They surrendered that right when they engineered a plan to detonate explosive devices on home soil.

We're in danger of becoming Europe's sponge. A place where asylum seekers can cross upwards of 10 borders to reach so they can receive free housing, schooling, medical treatment and filthy cash. Any true asylum seeker crosses ONE border if they fear for their safety.

What we need is a return to our 1930's values. A country that values what it has achieved, what it wants to achieve, and how it treats its people. But also a country that is not afraid to fight for what it believes, collectively, is right.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 04:27 AM
Well, I'll tell you something that you probably don't know.

The suicide bombers left behind something called "testaments" setting out exactly what their motivation was.

Any guesses why those testaments haven't been released ??

The official reason is that they are evidence yet they only give clues to motivation and not organisation.

The real reason is that the bombers clearly state that Iraq was the major motivation.

The UK may well have been attacked without Iraq but not by homegrown bombers.

PS. Watch out this Thursday and not just in London, other big cities too like Birmingham.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 05:46 AM
If "Iraq" was the excuse - why wait years after the fact when expediant action may have provided the plausible and timely reason.

Fact of the matter is Britain has been in Saudi Arabia, involved with Iraqi operations since the early 90's just as the US has - which is or seems to be the prime excuse for all the recent terrorism - not just the recent invasion.

Which idea popped into their fanatical minds first "lets do a bombing" or "lets protest the invasion" - I think the former was the sole reason while the latter conveniently provided the excuse.

Suicidal people are locked up for their own and others protection due to their temporary or otherwise insanity. To assert that the suicide bombers "testaments" were sane and sound as a basis for political action is a form of insanity IMHO.

Apologentsia =

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Toelint
Wasn't the bombing of that Disco in Bali blamed on Australia's involvment in East Timor, back in the eighties?

Australia's intervention in East Timor was in September 1999, not the eighties.

Also I would actually consider Robin Cook as a leader. He is obviously principled and acts with integrity. He called the consequences and the folly of the Iraq invasion. I would support him as PM. Im also a recent convert to disliking Mr.Blair and his policies, I used to support him until the Iraq invasion.

Yes there was a problem before the Iraq invasion but the invasion has made things WORSE not better. For that he has to go.

posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 06:14 AM

Fact of the matter is Britain has been in Saudi Arabia

Well, they do get 1/3 of our arms deal and we get oil in return and the British State supports the Saudi Royal Family, Plus Prince Charles has excellent relations with them too.

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 06:32 AM
This is a day late and a dollar short, JB1, and you may have seen and read it already, but I figured it might have some merit within this topic for those who have not seen it or it's seemingly speculative mention.
Blair 'to quit at next poll'

BRITISH Prime Minister Tony Blair has told his family and close political allies that he would quit as a member of parliament at the next general elections, a newspaper reported today.

The move would help avert any charge that he is lingering in the House of Commons to act as a backseat driver to his expected Labour successor, Gordon Brown, The Guardian reported.
Mr Blair, 52, had discussed his intentions with his wife, Cherie, and some of his oldest political allies had been told of his plans for "a clean break", it said.


[edit on 4-8-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 06:44 AM
I thought the man was just re-elected? Seems odd people are indicating the British PM should resign.

Never thought of Blair being a Bush pupet, Clinton was another matter but PM Blair was re-elected by the people in a democracy.


posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 11:59 AM
Dallas he was voted in by about 20% of voters. Thats hardly a representative we can all get behind in such trying times eh?

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 02:01 PM
John Bull 1 - Your opening post somewhat misses the point of the state affairs we are currently under. You've taken certain sections of a JIC report and jumped to conclusions as to what would have happened if the advice had been acted on differently. I don't mean to sound rude but you really need to read alot more about the ideology behind groups like Al-Qaeda. You state that if Blair had taken a different coarse of action then the Middle East and Britain would be a safer place. You give the impression from your post that if we didn't attack Iraq then somehow the problem wouldn't be here - the UK has always been a target, the JIC might have said that attacking Iraq would increase the threat - but they never said that NOT attacking Iraq would DECREASE the threat. That's a point that many people seem to miss.

Al-qaeda as a military force is not a threat to world security, the ideology they peddle is most DEFINATELY a threat to world security.

First and foremost in that threat is for an al-qaeda affiliated group obtaining nuclear material - either through a tin-pot dictator giving them the tools to build a dirty bomb, top of that list for giving them that capability has to be Saddam Hussain, he has a provrn track record in using them and in harbouring dangerous terrorists like Abu Nidel. For that reason alone Blair was absolutely right to join the US in removing him.....infact anything less then removing him would have been a gross dereliction of duty by a British Primeminister - Gadaffi was intelligent enough to realise this and acted accordingly, hence he's still in power.

The other major problem is in an al-qaeda affiliated group over-running an unstable but military capable country like Pakistan or Iran. If that ever happens then we are ALL in serious trouble, at the moment Pakistan is playing ball and can see the problem themselves, so the next port of call is to deal with's for this reason and for the greater security of the civilised world that Blair and Bush are absolutely right in leading a campaign in the manner they are against both idiotic regimes and fanatical religous groups and governments.

Perhaps Blair should resign - but definately not for the reasons you've stated (ie Iraq)...or his general handling of the terrorist threat.

new topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in