Re: Sir Tony : Mon Jan 10, 2022 7:40 am  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

Let us not forget that the only thing stopping Cameron going to war in Syria with the USA was a vote against it and him in Parliament.

I saw what you did here, nice swerve but the thread's about Tony Blair, keep on track please for once

Re: Sir Tony : Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:04 am  

chissitt wrote:

I saw what you did here, nice swerve but the thread's about Tony Blair, keep on track please for once

I was merely pointing out the juxtaposition that Cameron was ready to do exactly the same with the same partner but he was saved by Parliament. I would ask therefore why he should avoid similar disgust because over his time in office he achieved much less than Blair.
I am sorry you are getting desperate to try to regain your self esteem but my original post did fit into the topic but I should have mentioned the word Blair to make it easier for you to understand the comparison.

Re: Sir Tony : Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:07 am  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

I was merely pointing out the juxtaposition that Cameron was ready to do exactly the same with the same partner but he was saved by Parliament. I would ask therefore why he should avoid similar disgust because over his time in office he achieved much less than Blair.
I am sorry you are getting desperate to try to regain your self esteem but my original post did fit into the topic but I should have mentioned the word Blair to make it easier for you to understand the comparison.

So if as you say the majority Tory Government and the also rans in parliament stopped Cameron from doing the same thing, then why didn't the Labour stooges in parliament stop Sir Tony from doing the same earlier, he shouldn't as you rightly say avoid disgust so why don't you start a thread on it, I'm sure all those acquaintances of yours suspiciously quiet at the moment would relish the opportunity to voice an opinion, oh and fwiw please note I did give praise to Sir Tony for his efforts in Northern Ireland with the IRA, and if you were honest for once you'd admit that I've never praised your mate deprifferol once.
Not sure how bringing David Cameron into a thread about Sir Tony Blair fits, except in your agenda, can't wait to see what you come up with Terresa Green.

Re: Sir Tony : Mon Jan 10, 2022 11:29 am  

It’s not a question of why one did (Blair) and one didn’t (Cameron) but the fact that the former is tarnished where the latter is not despite both agreeing to back the USA in a war one in Iraq and one in Syria. I think it is fair to put this under a topic about the actions of one which would have been duplicated by another.
I hope I don’t have to dumb it down again for you but I can Blair bad by winning the vote and Cameron not by losing the vote. With regards the latter this was actually helped by Blair because it highlighted the problems of going into the Middle East, so much so that Parliament did not have the stomach to do so again.
I don’t have any acquaintances on here because unlike you I don’t know or claim to know them even a little bit I leave that to you because that is your modus operandi.

Re: Sir Tony : Mon Jan 10, 2022 3:21 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

It’s not a question of why one did (Blair) and one didn’t (Cameron) but the fact that the former is tarnished where the latter is not despite both agreeing to back the USA in a war one in Iraq and one in Syria. I think it is fair to put this under a topic about the actions of one which would have been duplicated by another.
I hope I don’t have to dumb it down again for you but I can Blair bad by winning the vote and Cameron not by losing the vote. With regards the latter this was actually helped by Blair because it highlighted the problems of going into the Middle East, so much so that Parliament did not have the stomach to do so again.
I don’t have any acquaintances on here because unlike you I don’t know or claim to know them even a little bit I leave that to you because that is your modus operandi.

Why wouldn't the former be tarnished? The "evidence" / "intelligence" he presented to the house in order to obtain the backing for military action was not correct.
Maybe if Cameron had presented some fictitious evidence he may have won the vote.

Poor poor effort at defending Blair 1/10.

Re: Sir Tony : Mon Jan 10, 2022 3:30 pm  

TURFEDOUT wrote:

Why wouldn't the former be tarnished? The "evidence" / "intelligence" he presented to the house in order to obtain the backing for military action was not correct.
Maybe if Cameron had presented some fictitious evidence he may have won the vote.

Poor poor effort at defending Blair 1/10.

Even he couldn't defend the indefensible, just simply a pathetic attempt at trying to deflect from the embarrassment of the former Labour leader by including Cameron, your 1/10 is quite fair, I assume it's for predictability and not for the lack of substance.

Re: Sir Tony : Mon Jan 10, 2022 3:32 pm  

chissitt wrote:

People can say what they want about Blair and the Iraq conflict, but I thought he did a good job trying to solve the problems in Northern Ireland sorting out the IRA if that's the right wording.

If any 'sorting out' was done it was on BOTH sides of the divide, and most of it was done by the late Mo Mowlem, Blair swanned in to take the credit pretty much as it was a done deal.

Re: Sir Tony : Mon Jan 10, 2022 3:38 pm  

Scarlet Pimpernell wrote:

It’s not a question of why one did (Blair) and one didn’t (Cameron) but the fact that the former is tarnished where the latter is not despite both agreeing to back the USA in a war one in Iraq and one in Syria. I think it is fair to put this under a topic about the actions of one which would have been duplicated by another.
I hope I don’t have to dumb it down again for you but I can Blair bad by winning the vote and Cameron not by losing the vote. With regards the latter this was actually helped by Blair because it highlighted the problems of going into the Middle East, so much so that Parliament did not have the stomach to do so again.
I don’t have any acquaintances on here because unlike you I don’t know or claim to know them even a little bit I leave that to you because that is your modus operandi.

Is this another of your American euphemisms?
The term acquaintances was tongue in cheek as I know your known as Billy no mates apart from lebron whom I'm sure you'll deny knowing anyway, just an observation really, but I notice your still in denial

Re: Sir Tony : Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:05 pm  

TURFEDOUT wrote:

Why wouldn't the former be tarnished? The "evidence" / "intelligence" he presented to the house in order to obtain the backing for military action was not correct.
Maybe if Cameron had presented some fictitious evidence he may have won the vote.

Poor poor effort at defending Blair 1/10.

It's hard to offer balanced "evidence" with the US presidents hand up you rear end.
Let's face it, there isn't a UK PM that would defy the US, not of any political persuasion, apart from the maybe the Lib Dems but, they will never have to make the call.
It's the price that "we" pay for having their "protection".

If they say jump, it's just a matter of how high.

The daily Evidence" of WMD was just embarrassing and it's no surprise that, even now, nothing had been discovered.

Re: Sir Tony : Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:47 pm  

chissitt wrote:

Is this another of your American euphemisms?
The term acquaintances was tongue in cheek as I know your known as Billy no mates apart from lebron whom I'm sure you'll deny knowing anyway, just an observation really, but I notice your still in denial

A friend like you makes not having any a positive even if it is true. I don’t know if you are still getting third hand information about me but I can definitely confirm that my first hand knowledge does not know this made up name unless you think I move in the world of the NBA.
I presume you get the irony of your post because I cannot see the connection with the topic maybe you should start a new one about how many friends each member has.