Tony Blair

by **Shugmaster** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:44 pm

Wonder if he will ge the music career back on track now he has time on his hands?

by **MartinC** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:47 pm

He's doing a guest solo on the new Pitiful Reign album.

by **Hostile** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:48 pm

It isn't like I picked the term "insurgency", that's just what the media calls it. We're splitting hairs here.

Iraq is Worse Off Than Before the War Began, GOA Reports
Living Conditions in Iraq: A Criminal Tragedy

Your misinformation is staggering.

WashingtonPost.com wrote:Iraqis were not primarily Sunnis or Shiites; they were Iraqis first, and their sectarian identities did not become politicized until the Americans occupied their country, treating Sunnis as the bad guys and Shiites as the good guys. There were no blocs of "Sunni Iraqis" or "Shiite Iraqis" before the war, just like there was no "Sunni Triangle" or "Shiite South" until the Americans imposed ethnic and sectarian identities onto Iraq's regions.

[source]

The war doesn't concern me in any way shape or form? My countrymen are dying, my taxes are funding civil war and bloodshed, and my country may yet receive the "blowback" from our aggressive foreign policy. The war is being used an excuse to curtail my civil liberties, and if we don't oppose it now, Iran is next.

by **Shugmaster** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:52 pm

Hostile wrote:It isn't like I picked the term "insurgency", that's just what the media calls it. We're splitting hairs here.

Iraq is Worse Off Than Before the War Began, GOA Reports
Living Conditions in Iraq: A Criminal Tragedy

Your misinformation is staggering.

WashingtonPost.com wrote:Iraqis were not primarily Sunnis or Shiites; they were Iraqis first, and their sectarian identities did not become politicized until the Americans occupied their country, treating Sunnis as the bad guys and Shiites as the good guys. There were no blocs of "Sunni Iraqis" or "Shiite Iraqis" before the war, just like there was no "Sunni Triangle" or "Shiite South" until the Americans imposed ethnic and sectarian identities onto Iraq's regions.

[source]

The war doesn't concern me in any way shape or form? My countrymen are dying, my taxes are funding civil war and bloodshed, and my country may yet receive the "blowback" from our aggressive foreign policy. The war is being used an excuse to curtail my civil liberties, and if we don't oppose it now, Iran is next.

He said shiite :lol:

by **Metal Iain** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:57 pm

Hostile wrote:It isn't like I picked the term "insurgency", that's just what the media calls it. We're splitting hairs here.

Iraq is Worse Off Than Before the War Began, GOA Reports
Living Conditions in Iraq: A Criminal Tragedy

Your misinformation is staggering.

WashingtonPost.com wrote:Iraqis were not primarily Sunnis or Shiites; they were Iraqis first, and their sectarian identities did not become politicized until the Americans occupied their country, treating Sunnis as the bad guys and Shiites as the good guys. There were no blocs of "Sunni Iraqis" or "Shiite Iraqis" before the war, just like there was no "Sunni Triangle" or "Shiite South" until the Americans imposed ethnic and sectarian identities onto Iraq's regions.

[source]

The war doesn't concern me in any way shape or form? My countrymen are dying, my taxes are funding civil war and bloodshed, and my country may yet receive the "blowback" from our aggressive foreign policy. The war is being used an excuse to curtail my civil liberties, and if we don't oppose it now, Iran is next.

I can't be ringed assessing the credibility of that article because I really don't care enough. However, if all it took was a couple of years, following centuries of Iraqis of all creeds skipping round and round in a big love circle, for a civil war to break out between Iraq's religious denominations then the situation must have been pretty volatile to begin with.

If the war had your blessing as a legitimate war, would you still be so upset that your countrymen are dying, your taxes are funding civil war and bloodshed, your country may yet receive the "blowback" from our aggressive foreign policy... and the war is being used an excuse to curtail you civil liberties? That's a serious question btw.

Iran is next?

*makes ghost noises*

Bring it, we'll kick all their cunts then have tea and scones on the charred wastelands they used to call home.

*rises for the Italian national anthem*

by **Metal Iain** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:58 pm

Shugmaster wrote:
Hostile wrote:It isn't like I picked the term "insurgency", that's just what the media calls it. We're splitting hairs here.

Iraq is Worse Off Than Before the War Began, GOA Reports
Living Conditions in Iraq: A Criminal Tragedy

Your misinformation is staggering.

WashingtonPost.com wrote:Iraqis were not primarily Sunnis or Shiites; they were Iraqis first, and their sectarian identities did not become politicized until the Americans occupied their country, treating Sunnis as the bad guys and Shiites as the good guys. There were no blocs of "Sunni Iraqis" or "Shiite Iraqis" before the war, just like there was no "Sunni Triangle" or "Shiite South" until the Americans imposed ethnic and sectarian identities onto Iraq's regions.

[source]

The war doesn't concern me in any way shape or form? My countrymen are dying, my taxes are funding civil war and bloodshed, and my country may yet receive the "blowback" from our aggressive foreign policy. The war is being used an excuse to curtail my civil liberties, and if we don't oppose it now, Iran is next.

He said shiite

Aye, it's the Iraqi equivalent of Sonny and Cher eh.

by **jonny_boy34** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:59 pm

Hostile wrote:The war is being used an excuse to curtail my civil liberties, and if we don't oppose it now, Iran is next.

Indeed. WWI and other such pointless wars are being used to try and illustrate that this war isn't as pointless as we think it is, yet that is irrelevant. The fact is, this war is happening now, and we shouldn't be criticised for caring about what happens to our world. Not just our country, but our world.

by **Shugmaster** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:07 pm

You do realise that if they had sent Team America in it would all be done and dusted by now!!!!

by **Hostile** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:09 pm

Metal Iain wrote:I can't be ringed assessing the credibility of that article because I really don't care enough. However, if all it took was a couple of years, following centuries of Iraqis of all creeds skipping round and round in a big love circle, for a civil war to break out between Iraq's religious denominations then the situation must have been pretty volatile to begin with.

If the war had your blessing as a legitimate war, would you still be so upset that your countrymen are dying, your taxes are funding civil war and bloodshed, your country may yet receive the "blowback" from our aggressive foreign policy... and the war is being used an excuse to curtail you civil liberties? That's a serious question btw.

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you frequently remind us that you don't give two shits about the situation, and haven't bothered to read up on a damn thing about it. It seems to me like the only thing you're taking seriously here is yourself.

by **jonny_boy34** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:12 pm

Shugmaster wrote:You do realise that if they had sent Team America in it would all be done and dusted by now!!!!

Fuck yeah!

by **Immortalicide** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:13 pm

James wrote:
Immortalicide wrote:As for brown, he is the most obnoxious looking politician ever. He is greasy and mongified looking. I hate his voice and he looks too shifty. As for his ability as a prime minister, we'll have to wait and see.

Why is any of that relevant to how good a job he will do in Number 10? Never mind that he is a very experienced politician who has performed solidly at the treasury for a decade! Symptoms of the presidential trends I guess.

And are you joking that you'd prefer Prescott? Seriously?

i never said it was relevant to how good a job he would do, i was just expressing my opinion about him, that is why i put the line we'll have to wait and see. :roll:

As for prescott, he calls a spade a spade, and he is more in tune with the normal public i think. However, i did also say that John Smith would have been the best labour PM and i still stand by that.

by **Metal Iain** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:20 pm

Hostile wrote:
Metal Iain wrote:I can't be ringed assessing the credibility of that article because I really don't care enough. However, if all it took was a couple of years, following centuries of Iraqis of all creeds skipping round and round in a big love circle, for a civil war to break out between Iraq's religious denominations then the situation must have been pretty volatile to begin with.

If the war had your blessing as a legitimate war, would you still be so upset that your countrymen are dying, your taxes are funding civil war and bloodshed, your country may yet receive the "blowback" from our aggressive foreign policy... and the war is being used an excuse to curtail you civil liberties? That's a serious question btw.

It's hard to take anything you say seriously when you frequently remind us that you don't give two shits about the situation, and haven't bothered to read up on a damn thing about it. It seems to me like the only thing you're taking seriously here is yourself.

I've read up about it. I knew that the UN did pass a resolution supporting the Invasion of Iraq, making it a legitimate war, and you didn't.

*wins*

However, I can't be ringed with all this hyper-liberal conjecture about how great life was in Iraq before the Big Bad West turned up and spoiled everything.

I don't see why I should give a solitary shit, let alone two, about the situation in Iraq. I don't pay taxes, don't have any relatives in the Armed Forces and really, really don't care about Iraq or its neighbours. I don't have a reason to care about it. So what if hundreds of thousands of people are dying? I don't know any of them and it's nothing to do with me.

And yes, the only thing I am taking seriously here is me because I'm sure as Hell not going not going to start taking hippies seriously.

In summation, Tony Blair was right to help out with the Invasion of a Iraq and any other PM would have done the exact same thing. So to cast a dark cloud over his premiership just because of a few dead Muslims is a bit of a shame.

by **Immortalicide** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:20 pm

Metal Iain wrote:I'm a Lib Dem through and through

by **Hostile** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:36 pm

Oh, wait, now I get it. I've worked out why I can't sympathise with Metal Ian's point of view. It's because he's Anne Coulter with a dick. Seriously, she's the only other person I've heard of who is so ultra-conservative that she can care only about herself, and laugh at the massacre of half a million innocent people.

The problem with you two is that your unique sense of morality refuses to be hinged down by cumbersome principles like respect, humanity or common decency, and so can hardly be grasped by anyone who suffers from those ideological stumbling blocks. Our loss, I guess.

by **jonny_boy34** on Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:57 pm

Indeed. "Just because of a few dead Muslims?" Why are you even bothering to argue about this?