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.

 

Murdoch wants Blair to work for him.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
CX

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 08:21 PM
link   


The media magnate Rupert Murdoch is expected to offer Tony Blair a senior role in his News Corporation empire when he stands down as Prime Minister.

Allies of Mr Blair insist he has made no decisions about his plans when he leaves Downing Street -- almost certainly next year. But some friends say a seat on the board of News Corp could tempt the outgoing Prime Minister, as it would dovetail neatly with the lucrative United States lecture circuit. Mr Blair's popularity at home may be waning, but he remains big box office in America.

Source: Murdoch wants Blair on his team


This is a good example of the power of the media bosses such as Murdoch. For those not aquainted with the much talked about influence someone like Rupert Murdoch has on what goes on, these few sentences give you a good idea....


"But Lance Price, who was deputy to the Downing Street communications director Alastair Campbell, is not among them. He has described Mr Murdoch as "the 24th member of the Cabinet", saying: "No big decision could ever be made inside No 10 without taking account of the likely reaction of three men - Gordon Brown, John Prescott and Rupert Murdoch."


With all the people wanting Blair to join them once he's done at No 10, who wants to bet money on who gets Blair in the end?


CX.




posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Well there is, of course, the slight matter of whether or not this report (by a competitor UK newspaper) is actually true or the whole truth or not, right?

If I'm sceptical of Murdock newspapers (and I am) I don't see any reason to give any of the rest a free pass on single source material (and highly questionable politically loaded stuff at that.....it's not like the Indie doesn't have it's own agenda, was there or got this 1st hand, right?).

Equally I'd also say that quoting from the memoirs of ex-insiders (whether they be ex-civil servants, ex-MPs or ex-political aides) doesn't exactly 'prove' anything either.
(afterall who'd sell their book - and there have been so many of them - if it was without any of that kind of innuendo and gossip?)

[edit on 30-7-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   
He won't take it.

Read the special in the independent today regarding Blair and America. Some are reporting job opportunities with the next potiental President of America (which is highly unlikely) but IMHO i feel Blair is eyeing up a job with the UN.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
i feel Blair is eyeing up a job with the UN.


- I think that is 100% on the money infinite.

It's a weird one though, just like Clinton and, shortly, Bush mk2.
After a long - but never to be repeated - stint in one of the top 'jobs' in the world, what next?

Special envoy, senior international affairs advisor, UN top-brass, part-time lecturer or possibly (but IMO unlikely) Ambassador?
It's extremely limited (and which new incumbent to the British PM-ship would wants the 'ex' hanging around anyway?).

But I can see no chance of it ending with TB signing on to a job at the Murdock media empire.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Murdoch wants Blair to work for him.

Good take him, so we can all be rid of the fool, He has done nothing for this country and the longer he remains PM, the bigger the laughing stalk this country is becommin. Murdoch if you want him, take him, We want rid of him here in the UK.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
We want rid of him here in the UK.


- A general election just over 1 yr ago says you're telling pork-pies sj.

Just cos you want "rid of him" is no basis for pretending that that applies to a majority, right?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- A general election just over 1 yr ago says you're telling pork-pies sj.


Care to elaborate about where the lies are coming from Sminkeypinky?


Just cos you want "rid of him" is no basis for pretending that that applies to a majority, right?


Well actually…

1. Blair approval rating at 28% 27th February 2006
www.angus-reid.com...

2. According to the Sun (one of Rupert Murdoch’s paper) 67% of people are dissatisfied with Blair; whilst 26% are satisfied. Apparently it’s the lowest ever. They are quoting a Mori opinion poll. 31st July 2006
www.thesun.co.uk...

3. Interesting Analysis 27th July 2006
politics.guardian.co.uk...

P.S If you have any problems with this info Just type “Blair approval ratings” onto Google.

I guess Blair letting weapons destined for the “poor Israeli” conflict will do a lot to
boast Blair’s approval ratings even further!!!

P.S Nearly forgot to mention that the ratio between Israeli and Lebanese deaths is at least ten Lebanese civilians for one Israeli.
However that doesn’t matter to me because one Lebanese death is worth ten Israeli to me (after all over 90% of Israelis support this conflict, and 70 percent want more force not less).
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.alertnet.org...

Interesting picture of Israeli kids writing on their tank shells
www.msnbc.msn.com...

Going Back to the Subject…

With both Blair, Bush and Rupert Murdoch both united over being pro Israeli; along with 6 of the 18 individual labour donors who registered donations of more than 100,000 pounds being pro Israel Jews (have no idea about what they think of this conflict; or the other 5 out of 13 being criminally investigated for cash for honours) I think Blair is an excellent position to receive a place at News International.
However as Blair is more popular with Americans than he is with his own people (sign of experience in my book) I think he will probably go on a lucrative tour first. He may also be tempted for a senior position with some of the arms of the industries his government permits within the U.K. But overall I think infinite is right he’ll probably take a retirement job at the U.N (though depending on how well he does in the EU bureau first). However the certainty remains that if Tony Blair ever wants a job in News International (perhaps even Israel) I'm sure it will be there for him. It could be the sort of non-job they give people who’ve been “treated” by the Ministry of Love in George Orwell’s 1984.
And let’s face it (perhaps like money) jobs talk (or certainly charm when they’re out of the press).



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Care to elaborate about where the lies are coming from Sminkeypinky?


- Well if you're going to start raving on about it I'd just like to point out that the term 'pork-pies' and the smiley might just indicate that I wasn't and was being a tad more light-hearted than you appear to be.
OK?


Well actually…


- Well actually nothing.

Opinion polls don't necessarily prove anything, they can only indicate.

....and when the last GE was so close I'll take that as the best indicator of all if you don't mind.

People might not consider TB to be the best guy around but as to which party and who they would really vote for if a general election were actually to be held tomorrow (as opposed to being asked the hypothetical question) is another matter.

The rest of your post was just an example of the rather tedious innuendo and twisting you are making your trademark, along with an attempt to take the discussion completely 'off topic'.


or the other 5 out of 13 being criminally investigated for cash for honours


- Do you see?
This is either an outright deliberate distortion and a lie or an indication of your willful ignorance on the matter.

Those people you referred to are not being "criminally investigated".

It is the main British political parties (all of them, actually) that are the ones under a Police investigation into the circumstances of whether Peerages were given or offered in return for money/support.

When the Police have concluded their investigations they will forward the matter to the 'Crown Prosecution Service' who will then decide if there is sufficient evidence to warrant criminal charges being put for any one of the parties to answer.
If there are then the matter will go to trial.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   


Just cos you want "rid of him" is no basis for pretending that that applies to a majority, right?


Who is pretending, the majority of brits are disgusted with this PM, so no I am not pretending, check the opinion poll ratings with regards to his popularity, and the result of the recent Council elections in England, a Slap down Blair and his party got from Voters who are disgusted by this governments lies on the Iraq War and his Constant shoulder to shoulder stance with Bush... Think you need to come out of that bubble of yours pinky and open up them eyes of yours.

If a General election was called tommorrow or even next week Labour would loose out, this is not fantasy this is reality.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Who is pretending, the majority of brits are disgusted with this PM, so no I am not pretending, check the opinion poll ratings with regards to his popularity.....

....If a General election was called tommorrow or even next week Labour would loose out, this is not fantasy this is reality.


- No it isn't "fact", it's pure speculative opinion.
All I'm saying is that this is far more a case of your own opinion than fact (and will remain so as there won't be a general election for several years).

The last true test of public opinion was the general election in may 2005, just over one year ago and Labour and TB came back with a reduced but still handsome majority.

Opinion polls can move around all over the place and like I said, they can only indicate they do not and can not actually 'prove' anything in themselves.

The real wonder about opinion polls in the UK is that they have remained so heavily in Labour's favour for so long.
That was the unusual part.
This it seems is now changing and we are returning to the kind of normality we used to have (ie sitting governments and their PM's go through periods of unpopularity between general elections).

But like I said, I wouldn't go betting the house on anything just yet, this is merely a return to the 'normal conditions' that used to pertain, you're just expressing your own attitude if you try to make too much more of it than that.

I'm more than happy to wait the 3 or 4yrs until the next general election to see who turns out to be right and whether we see a PM Brown or not.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Do you see?
This is either an outright deliberate distortion and a lie or an indication of your willful ignorance on the matter.


Well here’s the 13 names under investigation…
news.bbc.co.uk...
And five of them are Jewish as I showed in this thread politics.abovetopsecret.com...
(Since he was only recently arrested I added Lord Levy’s name).
To avoid sidetracking the topic discuss DONATIONS on that thread.


My point is that given Murdoch is pro Israel and as Blair is too (just like his backers) then he should be in good standing to receive a place in ether News International, Israel, and of course a place at the UN (and perhaps weapons firms too will always have their doors open to him? (accept it wouldn't be practical of course).



Opinion polls don't necessarily prove anything, they can only indicate.


Yeah but; any respectable opinion poll usually has a margin of error of only a few percent. There’s many opinion polls (conducted over a fair period of time I might add) which show both Labour (and particularly Blair) in decline.
I think its kind of “head in the sand” of you sminkeypinkey to dismiss both Labour’s and (particularly Blair’s) unpopularity on the grounds its “only” been documented by (many) opinion polls.

However perhaps you are right that Labour will be the winner at the next election. It’s in 2010 and the public mood is always a short term thing.

Then again…

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The real wonder about opinion polls in the UK is that they have remained so heavily in Labour's favour for so long.
That was the unusual part.


Sign of things to come?

And is Brown really a better politician than Blair?

I suggest Blair gets his job at News International, then swings the newspapers-opinion polls in Brown’s favour. Ha, ha, ha!!!
It would be a trinity of power: Murdoch “The Master”, Blair “The Controller” and Brown the PM. What a team?
Trouble is I think Blair will be doing business with other places than News International.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The opinion polls mean more than a general election: people might be disgusted with Blair, which is what the opinion polls show and what the original point was - however, in general elections you're not voting for Blair - you're voting for a local candidate, and for a party. The leaders are the figureheads and are important, it's true, but it's not everything. The Tories shot themselves in the foot repeatedly over a 20-year period but Labour were unelectable. The reverse has obtained for the past decade or so... but that could change.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Maybe Blair has been on the payroll the whole time.



So I take it Mr. Blair is soon done with the job of PM and now the time has come to cash in his chips with the world elites and finally start living the high life. Good for him he earned it and he was very loyal.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   


However as Blair is more popular with Americans than he is with his own people.


Yes, I would agree that Blair is popular in America. Well I like him at least. He is definitely more impressive than Bush - he can speak MUCH better than Bush.

Here is an example of what I like about Blair. I agree with this statement & I am surprised that people have not brought it up more:

"before September 11th, this global movement with a global ideology was already in being. September 11th was the culmination of what they wanted to do... even before September the 11th this was happening in all sorts of different ways in different countries. This movement has grown. It is there. It will latch onto any cause that it possibly can and give it a dimension of terrorism and hatred. You can see this. You can see it in Kashmir, for example. You can see it in Chechnya, you know? You can see it in Palestine. Its purpose is to promote its ideology based on a perversion of Islam and to use any methods at all, but particularly terrorism, to do that. Because they know that the value of terrorism to them is... it's not simply the act of terror, it's the chain reaction that terror brings with it. Terrorism brings the reprisal; the reprisal brings the additional hatred; the additional hatred breeds the additional terrorism, and so on. In a small way, we lived through that in Northern Ireland over many, many decades. The reason why they are doing what they are doing in Iraq at the moment -- and, yes, it's really tough as a result of it -- is because they know that if right in the center of the Middle East, in an Arab Muslim country, you've got a nonsectarian democracy -- in other words people weren't governed either by religious fanatics or secular dictators -- you've got a genuine democracy of the people: How does their ideology flourish in such circumstances? That's why the Taliban are trying to come back in Afghanistan. That is why the moment it looked as if you could get progress in Israel and Palestine, it had to be stopped. That's the moment when, as they say there was a problem in Gaza, so they realized: Well, there's a possibility now we can set Lebanon against Israel. Now, it's a global movement. It's a global ideology... you're up against an ideology that's prepared to use any means at all, including killing any number of wholly innocent people... Look, we've got a problem even in our own Muslim communities in Europe who will half buy into some of the propaganda that's pushed at it -- the purpose of America is to suppress Islam; you know, Britain's joined with America in the suppression of Islam... Muslims in America, as far as I'm aware of, are free to worship. Muslims in Britain are free to worship. We have pluralistic societies. You know, it's nonsense. The propaganda is nonsense. And we're not going to defeat this ideology until we in the West go out with sufficient confidence in our position and say, "This is wrong. It's not just wrong in its methods; it's wrong in its ideas, it's wrong in its ideology, it's wrong in every single wretched reactionary thing about it."


[edit on 1-8-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   


So I take it Mr. Blair is soon done with the job of PM and now the time has come to cash in his chips with the world elites and finally start living the high life. Good for him he earned it and he was very loyal.


Loyal to whom that is the question, he sold My Country (UK), down the river made it a joke on the World International Stage only one he has been loyal to is bush an co, no one else he only looks out for his own interests instead of the country he was supposed to be representin....



posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Blair would be perfect for a job with Rupert. Perhaps with his "fair and balanced" Fox network?

If you havn't seen it, watch the following doco..

www.cerebellum.tv...



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Great post kojac; In my view they both have a contempt for democracy but parliament doesn't see that.
However they say "birds of a feather fly together" so I guess its quite natural they should be friends.

Seraphium_Serpente

Yes, I would agree that Blair is popular in America. Well I like him at least. He is definitely more impressive than Bush - he can speak MUCH better than Bush.


Yes I see where you are coming from but you haven't had the British experience of the charismatic antichrist. You think, you believe that every word Blair’s says he says because he believes it. But he's a trained liar who became PM he's trash.

Your Blair extract also has a few flaws...
1. Iraq is not "a genuine democracy of the people" firstly it can't even form a proper government so how can it be one? Secondly people who take part in it risk being blown up; whilst almost everyone in Iraq who speaks their minds risks having their head cut of. But if Iraqi politicians start blowing each other up then at least we can say it represents Iraqi society.
2. "That's why the Taliban are trying to come back in Afghanistan" Taliban are trying to come back because they like power, they like selling opium and they like controlling people through religion. To say democracy is why they are trying to come back is rubbish unless you include at least some of the other provably significant reasons.

3. "That is why the moment it looked as if you could get progress in Israel and Palestine, it had to be stopped"
Well in Palestine the facts are Israel holds over a hundred woman and children as terrorist “suspects”. Hamas wants their release.
In Lebanon Hezbollah sided with their Arab brothers, kidnapped some soldiers on the disputed border and decided that they too should demand that some of their prisoners be released.

4. "they realized: Well, there's a possibility now we can set Lebanon against Israel"
No! Even according to this line of thought didn't they think "there's a possibility that they could set Israel against Lebanon by setting them Israel against themselves". Certainly Lebanon has never been set against Israel (only Hezbollah which at the start of this war enjoyed minority support) (as was shown by only 20 seats in parliament).

5. "Muslim communities in Europe who will half buy into some of the propaganda that's pushed at it -- the purpose of America is to suppress Islam; you know, Britain's joined with America in the suppression of Islam..."

"You know, it's nonsense. The propaganda is nonsense."

But is it nonsense (say that) England is both selling and assisting with the delivery of weapons to Israel?
If helping Israel in a war with at least a one to ten Arab death ratio isn't suppressing Arabs then what is? (although technically i suppose its compressing due to the weight of concrete).
Helping Israel with this war certainly isn't the sole purpose behind our governments existence but like Iraq (and Iran which is obviously next) its certainly one of them. Defending Israel is official U.S policy; just as licking George's ass is one of ours (or should I say Blair’s).

So you see there were a lot of questions just in that short bit of Blair speech. But hiring a good speech writer helps hide that, having Blair utter it will almost completely camouflage it. I bet Joseph Gobbles never left this earth!!



posted on Aug, 7 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
In my view they both have a contempt for democracy but parliament doesn't see that.


- Seeing as how the Labour government from 1997 on has extended democracy in the UK, rolled back the power of the State, Royal prerogative and devolved power to a unique degree the fact is that this simply is not true.


you haven't had the British experience of the charismatic antichrist. You think, you believe that every word Blair’s says he says because he believes it. But he's a trained liar who became PM he's trash.


- Jayzuss wept lib that kind of rhetoric is laughable.


Your Blair extract also has a few flaws...
1. Iraq is not "a genuine democracy of the people" firstly it can't even form a proper government so how can it be one? Secondly people who take part in it risk being blown up; whilst almost everyone in Iraq who speaks their minds risks having their head cut of. But if Iraqi politicians start blowing each other up then at least we can say it represents Iraqi society.


- Ah yes, the standard juvenile argument.

If it isn't instant perfection all progress is dismissed and has to be written off as totally worthless.

Iraq may be a mess, in places, but claiming that everything bad out there is new and solely the fault of the US/UK is a rather childish and ignorant attitude to take.

There has been some progress (the recent widespread voting despite the threats for instance) but it is true that there are many problems, however, the fault for the sectarian violence in Iraq lies with those committing those sectarian and violent acts, not the US & UK.

Personally I'd rather 'we' were not there, but 'we' are (now under a full and proper UN mandate), whilst many people have been against the war I don't think the majority are in favour of just leaving right now and leaving the Iraqi people to the sectarian extremists.


2. "That's why the Taliban are trying to come back in Afghanistan" Taliban are trying to come back because they like power, they like selling opium and they like controlling people through religion.


- Lib why don't you go and learn something about the situation out there before spouting off such inaccurate nonsense?

I suppose the fact that when the Taliban were in power the almost wiped out the heroin trade has completely passed you by?
Or that drug-use is something frowned upon (heavily) by such strict Muslims?


To say democracy is why they are trying to come back is rubbish unless you include at least some of the other provably significant reasons.


- Democracy (or what some there perceive as democracy) is the main reason.

The Afghan 'warlords' that were co-opted by the (democratic) US & UK in the original invasion into getting rid of the Taliban are now, as before, both a corrupt menace and encouraging the drug-trade to finance their fiefdoms.

In these circumstances the Taliban seem to some a reasonable alternative and proof that 'democracy' is merely an empty catch-phrase to help the criminal.

Perhaps you think the original removal of the Taliban was also wrong and yet another thing where you would have done absolutely nothing?
(If so you are in a small minority, few opposed the Afghan invasion).



Well in Palestine the facts are Israel holds over a hundred woman and children as terrorist “suspects”. Hamas wants their release.
In Lebanon Hezbollah sided with their Arab brothers, kidnapped some soldiers on the disputed border and decided that they too should demand that some of their prisoners be released.


- In 'Palestine' the facts actually are that each side has good reason to see injustice in the other.

.....but a simplistic and absurdly shallow black and white 'understanding' of the issues is no help to anyone.


No! Even according to this line of thought didn't they think "there's a possibility that they could set Israel against Lebanon by setting them Israel against themselves". Certainly Lebanon has never been set against Israel (only Hezbollah which at the start of this war enjoyed minority support) (as was shown by only 20 seats in parliament).


- Yeah, that's as maybe but the Lebanese didn't exactly move very hard for very long to stop the periodic Hezbollah attacks, did they?
Hence the Israelis taking matters into their own hands, rightly or wrongly.


But is it nonsense (say that) England is both selling and assisting with the delivery of weapons to Israel?


- The UK sells very little in the way of weaponry to Israel (as you have been told repeatedly).
£25 million last year and most of that was Landrover or electronic parts.
£25 million, a tiny fraction of the Israeli trade and much of it through British based but US-owned companies.....how are you going to stop that perfectly legal trade, hmmmmm?

The UK may well have been a convenient refueling point for US transport aircraft.....and what?
The US trade is legal and 'we' are acting legally.

It's quite clear that the up-shot of your little anti-Israel ranting is that Israel should stand and do nothing in the face of repeated attacks.

That's about as ridiculous a position to take as those who imagine an ever more ruthless Israeli response is the 'solution'.

.....and perhaps you'd let us know what part of your comments outside of a couple of lines at the start was 'on topic'?

[edit on 7-8-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I’ve been away recently but I’ll make this a priority post. Thanks Sminkeypinkey for the good reply; although it’s facing a strong challenge.


Seeing as how the Labour government from 1997 on has extended democracy in the UK, rolled back the power of the State, Royal prerogative and devolved power to a unique degree the fact is that this simply is not true.


Extending democracy? Would the devolution of Scotland; where they can elect MP’s to vote on issues that don’t affect them be part of that? The worst example was when they backed the so called “top fees” (which don’t affect Scotland). If they care about England maybe they should show their respect by not voting on issues which don’t affect them? Or could it have more to do with maintaining their position within the Labour party?

As for rolling back the powers of the state; every government does. The question is whether or not that has been the overall effect? I.D cards, 28 day imprisonment without charge, political protest bans within 1 kilometre of Westminster, and the same for about ten military sites, the dreaded parliamentary reform act (still in the pipeline though somewhat watered down) (for now) these things make me think otherwise.
Sminkeypinkey if you can name instances where Labour has rolled back the power of the state (which I'm sure you can) and show them to be of a bigger influence than the above (which I'm sure you can’t) then I might change my mind about Labour weakening our democracy.
I reckon Blair has a contempt for democracy because of several areas. He’ll “reform” the House of Lords, whilst resisting an elected second house. But meanwhile he will preside over a situation where Labour donors are 1657 times more likely to get an honour of some kind than those who don’t…
1.www.dailymail.co.uk...
2. www.timesonline.co.uk... (every 1 million donor gets an honour).
3. www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2006/07/21/nloans21.xml

Frankly I think we were better of with the old situation. Why? Because it was an act of birth-chance that governed who got Lordship. Judging from the honours scandal I have a funny suspicion that most Lords (appointed during this government) will have something morally wrong with them. Of course this could be true with the old system (but in my opinion it was less “guaranteed”). I'm no supporter of the old system ether but I do want an elected second house.

Blair opposes any form of voting reform; however so do the Tories and they have most to gain. So I guess that’s ok (well in itself).

But then you have the war in Iraq; did Blair lie? In my opinion its obvious he did; what worries me even more is how exactly Hutton cleared the government of “sexing up the war in Iraq”. This led to Greg Dyke been kicked out of the BBC. And at that time they the government got away with it (they were still telling the public WMD’s will be found). But regarding all things “sexed up” I have this to say to Blair “It’s a good job we don’t rely on opinion polls-common sense isn’t it?”


On Iraq? Ok…



Iraq may be a mess, in places, but claiming that everything bad out there is new and solely the fault of the US/UK is a rather childish and ignorant attitude to take.

There has been some progress (the recent widespread voting despite the threats for instance) but it is true that there are many problems, however, the fault for the sectarian violence in Iraq lies with those committing those sectarian and violent acts, not the US & UK.

Personally I'd rather 'we' were not there, but 'we' are (now under a full and proper UN mandate), whilst many people have been against the war I don't think the majority are in favour of just leaving right now and leaving the Iraqi people to the sectarian extremists.


Iraq may be a mess in places? Wouldn’t everywhere accept the old area of Kurdistan be a better description?
As far as laying the blame goes I’ll tell you this. A friend of mine (James) visited Baghdad shortly before the invasion. You could go anywhere, talk to anyone, and they weren’t even that hostile (in contrast to say certain areas of London).
But today I think London is a lot safer. There was no civil war when Saddam is power; he kept a country where 60 percent of the population are Shiite Muslim fundamentalists under control. Yes he killed people common “estimates” are about 300,000 people over a 30 year period. However with 1,800 people dying in Baghdad (alone) in this July (alone) www.abc.net.au...
Then I would say what we have unleashed is much worse. Especially as many of the people Saddam killed were sort of asking for it. People like to imagine many died wanting some western concept of a democracy; reality is most people who resisted Saddam did so for religious reasons, most were illiberal fundamentalists (or as that other test-embarrassment to democracy) Fox News says “Islamofascists”. I have very little time for these people; and I too believe they belong in mass graves (or under the cloud of a daisy cutter as we do in Afghanistan). Fact is that before U.N sanctions Iraq had 92% literacy, and 93% access to free health care (often of a first world standard). Saddam got rid of his WMD’s but the sanctions persisted; not so much at his expense but that of the Iraqi people. Fact is that the oil for food programme (which we in the west talk so much about as having been a possible let out to all of Iraq’s problems) only became functional in October 1997; fact is of the 65 billion it raised only 46 was destined to go to Iraqis by the U.N (the other 19 billion went to such things as Kuwaiti compensation) (even though they are a very rich country). en.wikipedia.org...
As Iraq has a population of 26,783,383 www.cia.gov...
We can calculate that even if all of the 46 billion had gone to Iraqis then they would only have received 1717 dollars during its 6 years of operation. This is 286 dollars a year or 5.50 dollars a week!!!
In short our sanctions were wretched; and our generosity was minimal (especially as it cost us nothing anyway).
P.S Iraq’s population has fallen by a few million since our invasion so the oil for food money available would probably have been even less than 5.50 dollars a week.

Of course Blair supported sanctions, and I think he really is a charismatic antichrist if he knew they had got rid of their WMD’s-that this war was unnecessary. And if Bush, Blair, or any majority of ruling class care so much about human rights I still can’t figure out why we’ve used over 1500 of depletive uranium over Iraq (which has a half life of 4.2 billion years). It’s not that radioactive but when a shell hits a tank the metal vaporises and from there it can be breathed in, or like lead accumulate in the food chain. This means radiation is released at point blank range inside the body and there is ample evidence that, that is harmful. Then again not condemning Israel in the slightest or withholding weapons exports also doesn’t say much about Blairs view of human rights-ethics.

You say its childish to blame Britain-U.S for all of Iraq’s problems. I say you have a serious lack of knowledge unless you mean that completely literally.
After all say you don’t like Saddam; well how did he get to power?
www.hartford-hwp.com...
www.muslimedia.com...
www.polyconomics.com...

The thing about Kuwait? Well it was Britain’s colonial occupation of the 1920’s which made Kuwait.
Before the territory had been part of Iraq for thousands of years
1. www.brisinst.org.au...
2. members.aol.com...
members.aol.com...
3. www.amazon.com... (I enjoyed reading it)

This fact helped “justify” its 1991 invasion
en.wikipedia.org...

Quote from: www.washington-report.org...
“Iraq was riled when Britain, under its League of Nations mandate for Mesopotamia, carved off the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait, making the emir permanently beholden to London. In 1991, Saddam Hussain, on the pretext that Kuwait was drawing too much oil from a shared deposit, invaded Kuwait, with largely popular support.”

The point I'm trying to make Sminkeypinkey is not only is Britain and America mostly responsible for Iraq’s problems 1991 onwards; but even in the past we have much to do with problems of today. We created Kuwait with a view to limiting Iraq’s oil wealth (in fact it was only in June 1961 it became fully independent) www.kuwait-toplist.com... this in turn caused the 1991 Gulf War. Ever wondered why so many different types of people are mixed up in Iraq anyway? Do your colonial history!!! (it was almost exclusively Britain’s doing).

So you see now it’s not juvenile to blame Iraq’s problems (past and present) on Britain? In fact it’s rather uneducated of you to say it is a juvenile argument.

As far keeping the troops there now; take a look at this Iraqi MOD opinion poll… www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
(I’ve given this link many times before as its source (The MOD) is excellent (being printed in the Telegraph and of being of this nature is just a bonus).

So yeah those troops obviously don’t have a mandate from the Iraqi people; and if their government is so democratic then we shouldn’t really have one from them. If it was really democratic Iraq would be just a sister state of Iran.
I support the argument contained in the third last link. I believe Iraq should be divided along ethnic and religious lines in order to bring back stability and end the fighting. Because you ether do that or you have a dictator to keep the whole country together and given the way Saddam complied with our demands, and kept stability, and spent so much of his countries money on his own people (both during and before it was impoverished by sanctions) then I can think of no better dictator than him. Of course our leaders have neither the wisdom, or sense of moral direction to do that.
And the great thing about dividing Iraq along religious lines is that regarding the Shiites you ether have a dictatorship which kills people, or you have a democracy which elects a dictatorship which also kills people. Given that the Shiite way of doing things is basically a fundamentalist religious state I reckon that a secular dictator like Saddam would be the best man for the job (why have Iran Two when you can have someone you can negotiate and reason with like him?) (And his unilateral disbarment of WMD’s prove that; since if he had really been full of self interest Saddam should have let his people starve and kept them) (as does like Kim Jong of North Korea).

Lies About Saddam…
Blair willingly governs a population which has little idea of the lies and misconceptions peddled by both government and mainstream media (most notably of all his friends Rupert Murdoch media).

Misconceptions…
1. The greatness of the oil for food programme
2. The high spending by Saddam on Iraqi people and needs
3. The history of Kuwait
4. The disputed use of poison gas by Saddam against the Kurds (given credibility by the CIA director at the time)
www.sovereignty.org.uk...
www.polyconomics.com...
www.truthout.org...
www.whatreallyhappened.com...
(I have to say it looks like an Iranian mistake which turned greatly to their advantage)
5. The effects of weapons like DU (although still disputed by the military) (and more widely known).

Lies…
Saddam Human shredder story…
1.members.iimetro.com.au...@iimetro.com.au/saddam.htm#Shredder%20Shocker
2. members.iimetro.com.au...@iimetro.com.au/saddam.htm#Babies
baltimore.indymedia.org...

3. The 300,000 figure? Yes you have to ask did Saddam kill that many people in mass graves? Perhaps he did (I don’t care because (as said) they’re mostly fundamentalists) but given that we did make up both the incubator and human paper shredder story then perhaps (just perhaps) we’re exaggerating his death toll? After all in this war we’ve run short of justification in so many ways.

But that’s not the point of this post. The point is that about everything I’ve said from the kilometre of political protests banned from Westminster, to the Iraq misconceptions and possible WMD lies (not to mention other legislation like I.D cards and possibly the parliamentary reform act) they all point to Blair having a contempt for democracy and parliament (or really the people) seeing that.

I doubt it means anything much because at the end of the day as Cameron will be almost certainly be exactly the same, (and sadly that’s partly why) he has a chance of winning. Of course the Tories (like any major party) could elect a human being (say Kenneth Clark who most the public would automatically support) but no (like the Labour) the closest they’ll do is provide a false one.
Personally I don’t think Blair or Cameron will take away the little democracy we have from us. However the lies, deception, and ways of doing things seem to show a contempt for it nonetheless. But at the end of the day there are only two parties that can come to power in this country and they begin with the letters ConLab. The Liberal Democrats (seem to me) to make themselves deliberately unelectable for government; perhaps that’s an illusion created by a stark reality? But ether way I see them as a bit of a false opposition. But make no mistake Blair has no love of democracy; only a decision to deal with it. If I'm wrong about that then those points of mine raise many more questions than they answer (especially if that is the answer).

Back to Lebanon

25 million in weapons to Israel is 25 many. There is such a thing called “gesture politics” my gesture to Israel would be that if you don’t stop hitting terrorist targets like airports, power stations, and apartment blocks (for having as little as an empty political office) then we will cut of arms sales to you. The apartment block thing is harder to argue (as some people so convinced that Israel is some sort of human country) so instead we’ll just stick to power stations and Terrorist Airlines (at least that way they’ll vaguely understand).
Also how many times has Israel been hit by Hezbollah before this conflict? I wasn’t aware of any until the last war. I don’t think Israel should stay idol in the face of a threat to its people. But I think they should look up the word “proportion” and phrase “smart-targeting” and then implement it, I think they should recognise that collective punishment is a gift to terrorist but an enemy to the welfare of their people (although obviously not their military).

I brought up the Lebanon thing firstly because if Blair represented the British people he wouldn’t be supporting it to extent he currently has, and because both Blair and Murdoch are pro Israel and that this is a cornerstone of their friendship (I also mentioned it because the thread was slowing). And encase you ask (like the media relationship) everything in this reply is to do with contempt for democracy. It’s the point I'm trying to make: Blair’s media relationship, plus track record equals contempt for democracy. It’s my belief and I think I'm saying it in the right place don’t you?



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
OK lib, I tried asking nicely and you refused to take the hint so now I'm telling you.

You will not be allowed to hijack this tread into being yet another extended rant about your opinion and attitude to the current British government or what is going on in the ME or how you think events in the ME have arisen.

The subject of this thread is "Murdoch wants Blair to work for him".

It is not "Blair's general relationship with 'the media' ", so no, you are not saying this in the right place.

The only on topic mention of Blair and Murdock in that last screed was 6 words of your personal opinion - "Blair and Murdoch are pro Israel".

If you want a rambling thread about the British government, the ME, the media and Tony Blair from 1997 - on feel free, start one if you like,
but you are not going to be allowed to keep up this hijacking you keep indulging in.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join