Maybe Blair isn't the Pawn some thought he was?

2007-01-08 18:17:47

#1

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|7026|132 and Bush

BLAIR WILL NOT MATCH TROOP 'SURGE'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a … ge_id=1770

Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a "surge" of 20,000 extra soldiers.

The Prime Minister will insist that the UK will stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army, as it has been doing with success in Basra and the south.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2007-01-08 18:36:08

#2

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7193

The voters have spoken in Briatin and they dont want it.

Maybe he doesnt want to leave Gordon Brown in the shit afetr he leaves.

2007-01-08 18:48:54

#3

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6830|North Carolina

Even Blair can't support as asinine of an idea as increasing troop levels. I'm pretty sure Congress will do everything possible to block Bush's move as well.

2007-01-08 23:41:16

#4

GorillaTicTacs: Member; +231|6799|Kyiv, Ukraine

I think its just a case of "retirement balls", the same ones US Generals seem to grow shortly before or after retiring. With Tony B.Liar announcing that he's withdrawing from British politics, maybe he had an epiphany and decided to make his own troops match what he's doing so he wouldn't be remembered as a Bush's pet poodle for all of history.

2007-01-09 01:42:00

#5

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6981

His hands are tied. I also think he secretly realises that this is a complete lost cause.

2007-01-09 03:44:21

#6

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7183|Argentina

When he won the election 10 years ago? he seemed so confident and he inspired respect indeed. I think he lost those qualities when he decided to support US in the invasion of Iraq. I wouldn't say he is a pawn, but he shouldn't have gone to this war. Iraq is his karma.

2007-01-09 04:48:35

#7

cospengle: Member; +140|6912|Armidale, NSW, Australia

Despite the fact that I'm fairly forgetful, I still remember the promises of 'resolve' and other cool (bullshit) words spoken by the leaders of the 'coalition of the willing'. What a cop out this is.

Without lending my support to starting a war in Iraq, I have to say that it pisses me off no end to see the leaders of our countries buckling under 'the pressure that comes with responsibility' while leaving the poor bastards with 'no responsibility whatsoever since all they have to do is not get their arse shot off' ie the troops, hanging out to dry. Alexander the Great is remembered as a great leader because he lead greatly rather than running away in time for tea and medals. Blair: what a pussy. Even the English cricket team have more to be proud of, at least they didn't run away because they might look bad.

It's funny that the debate on these forums have followed the political climate dictated by the timing of elections in so-called 'democratic' countries. It seems our wars can be won or lost on terms dictated by our adversaries because they can take advantage of the fact that our leaders have to look good once every so often.

Edit:

Daily Mail wrote:
...as it has been doing with success in Basra and the south.

I love it how thay point out how well the war is going...so why retreat?

Last edited by cospengle (2007-01-09 04:53:26)

2007-01-09 09:06:10

#8

~c4~cheppi: Member; +29|6783|Forest Green

Because we don't want to take over Basra...

2007-01-09 09:13:49

#9

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6981

cospengle wrote:
It's funny that the debate on these forums have followed the political climate dictated by the timing of elections in so-called 'democratic' countries. It seems our wars can be won or lost on terms dictated by our adversaries because they can take advantage of the fact that our leaders have to look good once every so often.

Maybe you would prefer a Hitler-style political climate where leaders don't have to give a damn about the will of the people, just rule with an iron fist?

2007-01-09 09:17:46

#10

Vilham: Say wat!?; +580|7192|UK

lol cospengle u ignoramus. The idea in the war in Iraq is to give the country back to Iraq. That is what the UK are succeeding with in the South of Iraq. Ie our strategy is working and Blair knows that, he listens to his generals. Whereas the American forces strategy isnt working.

2007-01-09 09:19:26

#11

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6954|Global Command

I think he smells the rivers of blood that are about to flow.

2007-01-09 09:46:53

#12

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|6975|UK

Theres not the resources, the military is spread all over hell, wheres he going to conjour these troops if he actually did want to support Bushes move. Britains seemingly endless need to copy what the Americans do is probably the main reason we are in this position. Iraq, Afghanistan and all those other places around the world, fair enough if you have the worlds most powerful military with hundreds of thousands of troops in reserve, we dont have that, so in my mind atleast this is as much (if not completly) a numbers issue, as much as a moral. Besides I doubt he even gives a flying fuck about Brown, we want JOHN REID! Legend if ever I saw one and he comes from my home town

Martyn

Edit: singed twice AGAIN

Last edited by Bell (2007-01-09 09:48:07)

2007-01-09 10:02:56

#13

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7007|SE London

After Sir Richard Dannatt's comments I'm not suprised.

[We need to ]get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems

When extremists (I use the term quite loosely here) like Dannatt start talking like that, it really is time to leave.

Bell wrote:
Besides I doubt he even gives a flying fuck about Brown, we want JOHN REID!

I don't want John Reid, the man's incompetent (not to mention a communist). I want Brown - he'd make a good PM. I found his interview the other day with Andrew Marr quite refreshing and very reassuring.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-09 10:04:00)

2007-01-09 12:57:04

#14

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|6975|UK

I think a proper contest is what is needed, I dont atall like the idea of him merely taking control when Blair leaves. Brown, has no personality, hes the classic grumpy scot, though his credentials from being chancellor no doubt speak for them selfs. But he's never going to grab public attention or support to the extent blair did. Reid has made mistakes, but is very popular, his seat (or was) in my constituency is one of the safest seats in the UK, winning elections by tens of thousands over and over again. Popular with young and old, actually I find it would be a good contenst, popularity vs credentials. Popular candidate is more likely to get re-elected, and that is what any political party would want. Brow took a hammering for the apparnt arguments with Blair over when he was leaving, that for me atleast tipped the balance infavour of Reid.

Additionally, do you guys prefer Cameron and his conservatives to yet another four years of 'new' labour?

Martyn

2007-01-09 12:58:42

#15

ShowMeTheMonkey: Member; +125|7127

Personally I think we need more people in Afganistan and leave the Iraqis.

2007-01-09 15:20:14

#16

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6830|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:
cospengle wrote:
It's funny that the debate on these forums have followed the political climate dictated by the timing of elections in so-called 'democratic' countries. It seems our wars can be won or lost on terms dictated by our adversaries because they can take advantage of the fact that our leaders have to look good once every so often.
Maybe you would prefer a Hitler-style political climate where leaders don't have to give a damn about the will of the people, just rule with an iron fist?

Exactly.... lol... good rebuttal.

BF2S Forums Maybe Blair isn't the Pawn some thought he was?

Daily Mail wrote:

cospengle wrote:

Bell wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

cospengle wrote:

Board footer