Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Would a Tory Government be a good thing?

Cameron/Hague would have taken us into Afghanistan and Iraq even quicker than Blair did - anyone who thinks any differently is an absolute fucking idiot.

Yep - ahead of the war, and before Blair unveiled the 'dodgy dossier,' the Tories were urging him to act.

Mr Duncan Smith accused Tony Blair of allowing the argument in favour of a pre-emptive strike against Iraq to drift over the summer.
He said: "It is now time for the prime minister to explain to the British people what he already knows - that Iraq is a clear and growing danger to Britain."

"The next generation of Iraqi missiles will be able to reach the whole of Europe. Saddam is just as likely to use terrorists to deliver such weapons," he added.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/2228294.stm
 
This is nonsense - Blair went a very, very long way towards making Iraq happen, going far beyond what any PM should have done in the circumstances (and probably far beyond what any potential PM would have done, with the possible exception of IDS).

To suggest - without any evidence whatsoever - that someone else would have been even worse than him is clearly an attempt to minimize Blair's personal responsibility for what happened to an unacceptable degree.QUOTE]

Not true. In fact a dangerous misconception, which is likely to keep people voting for the Labor Party.

First of all, no-one could have made more effort to get us into Iraq than Blair. He was lying his ass off in parliament and all over the media, he abandoned any scruple he ever might have had.

Second, the Tories retain a residual pride in British independence and still harbor illusions about being a player on the world stage. They wouldn't have followed a policy so obviously against British interests.
Third: the Nixon-to-China syndrome. Blair got away with it because of people who consider themselves liberals, or even Leftists, who backed him because they thought the war was about getting rid of a nasty dictator, or the liberation of women (remember that one) or somesuch crap.

So the Tories would certainly not have been as bad as Labor on this issue. And this is the sort of issue that would make me a single-issue voter, if I could be bothered to vote.

You're both talking bollocks. As Yossarian posted, IDS and the Tories were completely accepting of the UKs role in the build-up to Riaq, and given their long, long pro-American support, they would have been more than happy to go the same way Blair did.

Bit in bold - it's the mark of someone who's lost an argument to create a strawman like that. How does my statement reduce Blair's culpability? It doesn't; all I'm pointing out is that the tories would have behaved no differently. 'Clearly an attempt to minimize his personal responsibilty'...jesus...but then given a great many of your comments on this thread, starting with the guff about how the tories will reduce state spending on PFI, quangoes and consultants shows you're either a. trumping the tories and ignoring the obvious or b. have no real idea about how the tory party, and tories, think.

Bit in bold italics - pish and tish. The Tories frame British 'independence' in terms of Europe. Fucks sake, there's a rump of the Tory party that wants us out of Europe and by some machination (officially) becoming the 51st state of America!
 
[ Fucks sake, there's a rump of the Tory party that wants us out of Europe and by some machination (officially) becoming the 51st state of America!

Seriously? I've not heard this one before. . . and it's not like the Yanks would be likely to take you. . .
 
Yeah, there was (and for all I know still is) a group of Tories who mooted the idea of coming out of the EU and moving 'into' the US. Simon Heffer and a few others wrote op-ed pieces in the Torygraph and it appeared as a Baghot piece in The Economist.
 
Couldn't be arsed to read all the Tory bashing etc.
However one thing that is patently obvious we the voting Public don't actually have a choice it's either a rock or a hard place.
Both plan to cut benefits to repay the massive debts run up by our moneyed elites or rob the poor to prop up the rich. It stinks worse than a 6 'o' clock in the morning beer and Jalfrezi turd. :mad:
 
You're both talking bollocks. As Yossarian posted, IDS and the Tories were completely accepting of the UKs role in the build-up to Riaq, and given their long, long pro-American support, they would have been more than happy to go the same way Blair did.

Even if this were true, which it isn't, the Tories would never have got away with dragging us into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Blair got away with it because people still believed he was somehow to the "left" of the Tories, and he was therefore able to garner the support or at least the acquiescence of liberal opinion. If it had been the Tories in charge, liberal opinion would have been solidly against the wars.
 
'Liberal Opinion' doesn't count for anything when the Tories are in power, so their support, or otherwise, is irrelevant. Newspapers like The Sun, Telegraph and Mail would have trumpeted the cause, and the Guardian & Independent would have been howling in the wind.

Afghanistan was a NATO mission from the start, and launched in response to 9/11; the Tories would have been honour bound to accept it anyway, as the loudest cheerleaders for NATO in UK politics, and they would have followed Bush into Iraq in exactly the same way Howard did in Australia. This idea that the Tories would have stayed out of Iraq as some kind of show of independence from the US is a joke.
 
Debating who's less warmongerish out of New Labour and the Tories is somewhat two-bald-men-and-a-combesque is it not? Put it this way, I can't see either party boasting their peacenik credentials too strongly as a part of their election campiagns.
 
You're both talking bollocks. As Yossarian posted, IDS and the Tories were completely accepting of the UKs role in the build-up to Riaq, and given their long, long pro-American support, they would have been more than happy to go the same way Blair did.

Bit in bold - it's the mark of someone who's lost an argument to create a strawman like that. How does my statement reduce Blair's culpability? It doesn't; all I'm pointing out is that the tories would have behaved no differently. 'Clearly an attempt to minimize his personal responsibilty'...jesus...but then given a great many of your comments on this thread, starting with the guff about how the tories will reduce state spending on PFI, quangoes and consultants shows you're either a. trumping the tories and ignoring the obvious or b. have no real idea about how the tory party, and tories, think.

Bit in bold italics - pish and tish. The Tories frame British 'independence' in terms of Europe. Fucks sake, there's a rump of the Tory party that wants us out of Europe and by some machination (officially) becoming the 51st state of America!

Yep.

New labour = Slightly covert about their Atlanticism.
Tories = Overt about their Atlanticism.

The difference between Labour and the Tories going into Iraq and Afghanistan is that the Tories would possibly have sold it to the public slightly more honestly, that's all.
 
The difference between Labour and the Tories going into Iraq and Afghanistan is that the Tories would possibly have sold it to the public slightly more honestly, that's all.

Nah, they would have stuck to exactly the same WMD line as the yanks. Britain, as the US's warrior nation junior partner would never have been in a position to advance an alternative narrative. For further proof read IDS post earlier in the thread.
 
You're both talking bollocks. As Yossarian posted, IDS and the Tories were completely accepting of the UKs role in the build-up to Riaq, and given their long, long pro-American support, they would have been more than happy to go the same way Blair did.

Bit in bold - it's the mark of someone who's lost an argument to create a strawman like that. How does my statement reduce Blair's culpability? It doesn't; all I'm pointing out is that the tories would have behaved no differently. 'Clearly an attempt to minimize his personal responsibilty'...jesus...but then given a great many of your comments on this thread, starting with the guff about how the tories will reduce state spending on PFI, quangoes and consultants shows you're either a. trumping the tories and ignoring the obvious or b. have no real idea about how the tory party, and tories, think.

Did you actually read my comments earlier in the thread? It seems not, since you missed the important proviso at the end:

I dont for one moment think that Cameron's lot will produce such a government, but the point still holds true.
 
Couldn't be arsed to read all the Tory bashing etc.
However one thing that is patently obvious we the voting Public don't actually have a choice it's either a rock or a hard place.
Both plan to cut benefits to repay the massive debts run up by our moneyed elites or rob the poor to prop up the rich. It stinks worse than a 6 'o' clock in the morning beer and Jalfrezi turd. :mad:
what the tories forget is that we should lock up the bankers and throw away the key. We should also withdraw from afghanistan and iraq, but since they are right wing wankers they will fuck over the poor instead
 
Back
Top Bottom