| And another note, while persoanly I believe the long-term strategic goals that were no doubt the main reasons for invading Iraq may well turn out ot be a case of ends justifying the means, to let Blair off the hook for a foresight on power problems when his government have been resolute in their efforts to bury their heads in the sand over the issue is quite ridiculous. I do wish the goverment would pull its head out of its green-ringed arse and start building some nuclear fuckin power stations before the lights start to go out. |
Surely Blair has to resign or be impeached • Page 2
-
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years ago -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoJust watch em though, just watch em. Nursery vouchers and gypsies are more important.
Edited by Khanivor at 16:18:02 28-04-2005 -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoWell that energy can always be sold aborad. Just like we buy electricity from France we could sell it to other European nations. At the rate we are going there are many fears expressed about becoming reliant on overseas electrical power.
The alternatives being considered, like wind power, cannot deliver energy on demand so back-ups in the shape of dirty nasty fossil fuel-fired stations will need to be retained and cosntantly ticking over. A coal power station emits more radiation then a nuclear powered one, and that is old, inefficent stations I'm talking about, not the kind of thing we could build now.
Frankly, I think the Blair governments utter lack of energy policy and the potentialy fatal reprecussions that may arise from such a dereliction of the duty of goverment are yet another reason those self-serving assholes should be dispossed of.
Edited by Khanivor at 16:30:29 28-04-2005 -
President_Weasel 12,355 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 17 years agoTony Blair either lied to the public and to parliament about Saddam being able to deploy weapons of mass destruction against us in 45 minutes or, less likely but still a good reason not to vote for him, was too incompetent to realise the claim in the intelligence wasn't backed up by any convincing proof and anyway only referred to battlefield weapons.
Either way there was no threat to the UK, and that's why he told us he was going to war.
The only way that our invading Iraq might possibly have been barely legal was if we had found WMDs. We didn't find any because they had none.
It's all very well for Tony to turn round now and say the war achieved its aim, which was regime change apparently, but
1) that's not why he told us we were going to war, and
2) the UN resolution in no way shape or form allowed us to go to war for regime change.
In other words, Tony Blair is a liar and a war criminal.
88 British servicemen and countless Iraqis (countless because the allies have made no real effort to coutn them) are dead because of him.
Apparently the families of the dead servicemen are going to try to bring our Tone to court. Good luck to them I say. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoThere's an huge unspoken reason why TB hasn't wanted the legal advice to be published. If it is judged that the war was illegal then the International Criminal Court would have no option but to put him on trial. While GWB will be laughing his ass off at his hopefuly naive friend, the irony of the situation for those of us who have never trusted the foppish one will be too delicious to taste. -
President_Weasel 12,355 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 17 years agoOne of the drawbacks to Tony's presidential government style is that it leaves him little cover when he makes a mistake or, y'know, illegally declares war and invades another country.
I'd love to see him do time for it. -
Clive_Dunn 4,862 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years agoSlightly OT, but did anyone see the fake election broadcasts done by the same guys who did the VW / Suicide bomber viral ? Quality stuff, both the Labour and Tory ones were very effective.
Election adverts -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agowasp wrote:
They don't need it at night either
Besides, I doubt we could sell nuclear electricity to the French, they're a bit better at it than us
Nuclear cannot be used as a replacement for fossil fuel stations in its current form.
While nuclear power is not a total replacement it can sure provide for a lot more clean energy then we get from it. France gets 75% of its energy from nuclear power, there's no reason other then politics (which can influence the costs invovled, eg. giving nuke plants the no CO2 emmissions break) why we couldn't shift towards energy of a nuclear fashion.
Sorry, but one, or even five, fossil fuel stations will not even cover oour rising energy needs, let alone make up the shortfall when the nuclear plants are decommsioned.
The government could do other things, like insist on striuct energy efficiency specifications for all new houses. That could save more energy then the wind farms will ever be able to prodcue and with far less damage to our ecology and envirnoment. -
President_Weasel 12,355 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 17 years ago
Yeah, that'll teach him and anyone else who has aspirations for public office.
I'm sure he invaded Iraq out of spite.
Yeah, that'll teach him you can't break international law and get away with it.
And I doubt heinvaded Iraq out of spite, he did it because he didn't have the guts to tell George Bush no.
When Johnson wanted Britain to join America in Vietnam, Wilson told him to stuff it. Shame Tony wasn't made of the same stuff. -
BlackJedi 388 posts
Seen 6 years ago
Registered 17 years agopjmaybe wrote:
The Lib Dems were fucking INVISIBLE during the run-up to the war and during the war itself. I think I saw a half-hearted "oh really, I don't think we should be doing this" ONCE on the news in the whole time.
YET aside from a very cursory mention here and there, Lib Dems aren't making it a focal point that they didn't back the war. Not as much as they could've anyway.
They were the only people who could have given the anti-war majority in this country a voice, and they signally failed to do so. This is one reason I find it hard to take the Lib Dems seriously as a political force. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years ago -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agoBlackJedi wrote:
If the media chooses not to cover it...
The Lib Dems were fucking INVISIBLE during the run-up to the war and during the war itself. I think I saw a half-hearted "oh really, I don't think we should be doing this" ONCE on the news in the whole time.
They were the only people who could have given the anti-war majority in this country a voice, and they signally failed to do so. This is one reason I find it hard to take the Lib Dems seriously as a political force.
To be honest, the BBC was the voice of the people in this, but then came Hutton and his oh so believable report. -
sam_spade 15,745 posts
Seen 1 week ago
Registered 20 years agomal wrote:
BlackJedi wrote:
If the media chooses not to cover it...
The Lib Dems were fucking INVISIBLE during the run-up to the war and during the war itself. I think I saw a half-hearted "oh really, I don't think we should be doing this" ONCE on the news in the whole time.
They were the only people who could have given the anti-war majority in this country a voice, and they signally failed to do so. This is one reason I find it hard to take the Lib Dems seriously as a political force.
To be honest, the BBC was the voice of the people in this, but then came Hutton and his oh so believable report.
Kennedy isn't a good media person in parliment while Howard and Blair spar, he stands in the corner and has long-winded statements, which just aren't suitable for short news clips.
The Lib Dems need a better leader, more media friendly leader if they want to win an election.
BTW, what's the track on the Conservative trailer that Clive linked? -
Dynamize 1,672 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 19 years agoBlackJedi wrote:
The Lib Dems were fucking INVISIBLE during the run-up to the war and during the war itself. I think I saw a half-hearted "oh really, I don't think we should be doing this" ONCE on the news in the whole time.
They were the only people who could have given the anti-war majority in this country a voice, and they signally failed to do so. This is one reason I find it hard to take the Lib Dems seriously as a political force.
You didn't go and watch Charles Kennedy in Hyde Park on the big anti-war march then. Oh, and I happened to bump into Simon Hughes near Trafalgar Square on the way there. He courteously thanked me and my mates for coming. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agoDynamize wrote:
BlackJedi wrote:
The Lib Dems were fucking INVISIBLE during the run-up to the war and during the war itself. I think I saw a half-hearted "oh really, I don't think we should be doing this" ONCE on the news in the whole time.
They were the only people who could have given the anti-war majority in this country a voice, and they signally failed to do so. This is one reason I find it hard to take the Lib Dems seriously as a political force.
You didn't go and watch Charles Kennedy in Hyde Park on the big anti-war march then. Oh, and I happened to bump into Simon Hughes near Trafalgar Square on the way there. He courteously thanked me and my mates for coming.
You took the words out of my outh Dynamize. -
mal 29,326 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 20 years agootto wrote:
Yes, he wrote something similar (and shorter) in a magazine I picked up the other day. I'm very tempted to agree with him.
I think George Monbiot's take on how you should vote against the war is very interesting. Linkage. -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years agomorriss wrote:
Jack straws view on the whole thing. Spinning Hans Blinx and just about everything to try and convinve us it's legal.
Just listened to the interview again. It really is amazing how politicians never answer any direct questions. The Today Programme interviewer was exceptional, as they almost always are. If you haven't clicked on the above link. You really should take 20mins out of your day and listen to it. Journalism at its finest. -
terminalterror 18,932 posts
Seen 6 days ago
Registered 20 years agoKhanivor wrote:
Sorry, but one, or even five, fossil fuel stations will not even cover oour rising energy needs, let alone make up the shortfall when the nuclear plants are decommsioned.
Thats the important point. Whether or not we want to move towards the French model of lots of nuclear power, we will need to replace the ones we have, and need to get started very soon if we want to have new ones ready when the old ones are decommisioned. -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoDid you watch Paxman eviscerate that twat Martin McGuiness last night? Funny as hell. It's always enjoyable to watch those thugs turn into little schoolboys when things get to tricky for their limited minds to handle. -
Surely anyone with half a brain and half a conscience has to vote Lib Dem now. It was already bleeding obvious that Blair had shoehorned the intelligence and the legal advice into his case for the war, now we have the proof that it was an illegal fix. Come on people. You can't vote for a party that supported this outrageous war. -
I think George Monbiot's take on how you should vote against the war is very interesting. Linkage. -
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
