Re: The UK General Election Thread

[Merlin]

That's a load of b*ll*cks MB and you know it.... shooting them all... FFS ... waste of time, money and bullets.

The only feasible and final solution (to coin a meglomaniacs phrase of yesteryear) is to nuke all the f'kers in Afganistan once and for all.... and whilst we're out there, swing into Iran and do the same.

Only then will it be End of.

'orrie - you really are so full of excretia at times that I worry for you every time you blow your nose! As succinctly explained by the Growler above ... there's a HUGE diffo between invading someone else's sovereign land without invitation and defending your own sovereign territory (... except when it comes to Wales perhaps...) against threat from evil megalomaniacal (there's that word again) controlled external forces.
Maggie, as ever, was correct and decisive.... bless her cotton kickin' Argie socks !

[Guest]

Merls,

The Tories would have done exactly the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, probably without all the globetrotting diplomatic effort that Blair put in first.

I suspect that they would have done the bank bail-out too, like every other Western democracy. It was either that or put five million more on the dole queues, and then had to borrow to support the hugely inflated welfare budget.

[JKLever]

Yeah, anyone thinking they should have just let the banks rot is a fool.

The Tories will deserve a good slapping if they sell the shares at a reduced price for short term political gain.

[Growler]

No real comparison between the two conflicts H ...... the one was a response to armed invasion of British sovereign territory, the other an action of questionable legality, with ill defined objectives in a country where we have absolutely no economic interest.

Furthermore, the government justified it by asserting that doing nothing would lead to hordes of beardy men in robes blowing themselves up all over the place

But IIRC, the (British) Government had slept on previous warnings of junta intent to invade. Maggie was always better at (and preferred) displays of power than quieter steps to prevent the problem in the first place. A war indeed relatively easy to win, once the US had been "brought onside", but a bad example of international skills.

Whereas Blair's wandering in to Afghanistan was on his little god Bush's coattails..And not worked out as regards ends and means.

You can certainly compare the questionable statesmanship and diplomacy.

Peter, your memory is quite right in so far as Argentina was indeed sabre-rattling for some time prior to the actual invasion, but in fairness to the then government I don't think anyone believed they would actually invade. Once Galtieri's mind was made up, I don't believe any diplomatic measures would have changed anything.

Yes Mrs T was, as you say - better at displays of power than diplomacy, but disagree with your inference that she wanted a war over the Islands. If you weren't inferring that - apologies for misreading it.

One significant difference between then ( Mrs T / Reagan / FI ) and now ( Blair / Bush / "War on Terror" ) is that 30 years ago, many MPs had seen combat in WWII, and didn't send soldiers into danger lightly. Todays MPs are 2 generations removed, and have never been personally touched by conflict.

[Merlin]

Merls,

The Tories would have done exactly the same in Iraq and Afghanistan, probably without all the globetrotting diplomatic effort that Blair put in first.

That's not the point Rob.
Labour were the the incumbents with a collossal majority! Hypotheses doesn't work here I'm afraid!
The fact that Parliament and the nation were both lied to in order to expedite the activation of a unilateral decision taken a year previously by Bush and his schoolboy f a g Blair is condemnation (if such were needed) enough of a deliberate intent to mislead for the sake of assuaging their combined egos. The Chilcot Enquiry has clearly exposed the failings.
Would the Tories have kow-towed to the arrogant Bush ... I somehow doubt it.
Anyway ... it's all conjecture.

I suspect that they would have done the bank bail-out too, like every other Western democracy. It was either that or put five million more on the dole queues, and then had to borrow to support the hugely inflated welfare budget.

Here I would agree that the Tories would most probably have adopted the same rescue path for the banks.... HOWEVER, again, it's mere conjecture to wrongly assume that they would have placed the economy in the dire straits it found itself in the first place! Labour had 12 years to juggle the numbers ... and in the end they did it majestically!

It is also highly amusing how swiftly the likes of Lever and B@z (as two exampes on the forum) are quick to condemn the Tories for "lacking policies" before their policies and manifestos are even published!! WhyTF repeat the dose - as with the '05 elections - by showing your intentions early enough for the Socialists to hijack them by cutting and trimming them to suit their clarion call ?!

Wait awhile fellas ... all will be revealed in due course.
The bully's got to nominate a date first ....

[Merlin]

One significant difference between then ( Mrs T / Reagan / FI ) and now ( Blair / Bush / "War on Terror" ) is that 30 years ago, many MPs had seen combat in WWII, and didn't send soldiers into danger lightly. Todays MPs are 2 generations removed, and have never been personally touched by conflict.

An interesting approach ... I've never thought of it that way ... but clearly, it is a rational enough point to make absolute sense over what turned out to be a swift, manipulateand and lightly debated exercize before committing the troops.

[PeterCS]

No real comparison between the two conflicts H ...... the one was a response to armed invasion of British sovereign territory, the other an action of questionable legality, with ill defined objectives in a country where we have absolutely no economic interest.

Furthermore, the government justified it by asserting that doing nothing would lead to hordes of beardy men in robes blowing themselves up all over the place

But IIRC, the (British) Government had slept on previous warnings of junta intent to invade. Maggie was always better at (and preferred) displays of power than quieter steps to prevent the problem in the first place. A war indeed relatively easy to win, once the US had been "brought onside", but a bad example of international skills.

Whereas Blair's wandering in to Afghanistan was on his little god Bush's coattails..And not worked out as regards ends and means.

You can certainly compare the questionable statesmanship and diplomacy.

Peter, your memory is quite right in so far as Argentina was indeed sabre-rattling for some time prior to the actual invasion, but in fairness to the then government I don't think anyone believed they would actually invade. Once Galtieri's mind was made up, I don't believe any diplomatic measures would have changed anything.

Yes Mrs T was, as you say - better at displays of power than diplomacy, but disagree with your inference that she wanted a war over the Islands. If you weren't inferring that - apologies for misreading it.

One significant difference between then ( Mrs T / Reagan / FI ) and now ( Blair / Bush / "War on Terror" ) is that 30 years ago, many MPs had seen combat in WWII, and didn't send soldiers into danger lightly. Todays MPs are 2 generations removed, and have never been personally touched by conflict.

I wasn't implying Mrs T somehow "encouraged" a war in the South Atlantic. I was saying she had not gone properly about defending the Islanders' interests prior to the invasion.

Of course, the invasion did beautifully suit her (show-of) strengths and her political interests, but that is a rather separate issue.


I would agree with you only to a degree about your final point.

I remember well one Casper Weinberger intoning propagandistically that "the price of peace and freedom is high, but whatever it costs, it's worth it." Far too abstract for my liking - and i didn't see Weinberger risking his own life by invading Grenada, beefing up nuclear and general military spending to cracking point, pursuing narrow Amercan interests at the expense of "whatever it was worth", etc..

And Alexander Haig, for all his military background, had too much of the Dr Strangelove about him too - not-so-vaguely recalling his namesake of almost a century earlier, but with far bigger weapons, geopolitical muscle and more of a coolly crazed look in his eye.

It takes a *better and more honest commander* (link) at any time in history to admit that war should after all be a last resort, not something to relish at the expense of the fortunes and lives of many others.

*The first modern general*

[PeterCS]

Merlo - you really are in full "propaganda station" mode ...

[Merlin]

Merlo - you really are in full "propaganda station" mode ...

Not really Petey ... still two months to go!
But it does greatly amuse me to read the pre election condemnations on here of the Tories (and their non-policies) whilst those same posters conveniently excuse the Labour incumbents by omitting to make any reference to them and their self created catastrophes !
Interesting concept!

[Guest]

The fact that Parliament and the nation were both lied to in order to expedite the activation of a unilateral decision taken a year previously by Bush and his schoolboy f a g Blair is condemnation (if such were needed) enough of a deliberate intent to mislead for the sake of assuaging their combined egos. The Chilcot Enquiry has clearly exposed the failings.

My own view is that Bush&Blair did the right thing for the wrong reasons. Saddam kept on screwing with the UN inspectors up to the last minute. He was never going to fully disarm. As for the WMD, I think they will be found buried under a sand dune - maybe in 2010, maybe in 2110.

Would the Tories have kow-towed to the arrogant Bush ... I somehow doubt it.

I think they would have pushed him harder. Remember Thatcher in 1990: "Don't go wobbly on me George"? Blair tried for stronger UN sanctions before invading, if you recall.

Here I would agree that the Tories would most probably have adopted the same rescue path for the banks.... HOWEVER, again, it's mere conjecture to wrongly assume that they would have placed the economy in the dire straits it found itself in the first place! Labour had 12 years to juggle the numbers ... and in the end they did it majestically!

I seem to remember a couple of huge economic slumps under Thatcher too. I have no belief that the Tories ever did or ever will handle the economy better than NuLab have.

[JKLever]

I wasn't implying Mrs T somehow "encouraged" a war in the South Atlantic. I was saying she had not gone properly about defending the Islanders' interests prior to the invasion.

This is quite right, Nicholas Ridley had been trying to sell the Falklanders down the river to a dictatorship 2 years earlier. Combined with the scheduled withdrawal of HMS Endurance, all these things combined to pique the interest in the Argies. It's all the more damning because in 1977 there was an incident too.

Having said that, it is still hard to believe that the Junta thought they could invade and Britain would say 'ok then you win'

[Allan D]

Would the Tories have kow-towed to the arrogant Bush ... I somehow doubt it.

I think they would have pushed him harder. Remember Thatcher in 1990: "Don't go wobbly on me George"?

Yes, but that was to a different Bush. Ian Duncan-Smith, the then Conservative Leader, said, in the Commons debate in March 2003 which authorised the use of force, that even if Saddam Hussein did not have WMD it would still be justified to overthrow him.

[Allan D]

...it is still hard to believe that the Junta thought they could invade and Britain would say 'ok then you win'

Dictators frequently make errors of judgment that ultimately prove fatal. Look at Adolf's career.

[embee]

...it is still hard to believe that the Junta thought they could invade and Britain would say 'ok then you win'

Dictators frequently make errors of judgment that ultimately prove fatal. Look at Adolf's career.

Stop baiting tac

[Guest]

One significant difference between then ( Mrs T / Reagan / FI ) and now ( Blair / Bush / "War on Terror" ) is that 30 years ago, many MPs had seen combat in WWII, and didn't send soldiers into danger lightly. Todays MPs are 2 generations removed, and have never been personally touched by conflict.

An interesting approach ... I've never thought of it that way ... but clearly, it is a rational enough point to make absolute sense over what turned out to be a swift, manipulateand and lightly debated exercize before committing the troops.

Thatcher and Reagan never served in WW2 either. Bush snr did and he committed troops to Kuwait. I don't think there is a correlation among politicians.

The Generals who have seen combat are likely to try to avoid sending their young men in e.g. Colin Powell.

[Allan D]

I'm not sure there is any clear correlation either way. Before WWII politicians like Baldwin, Chamberlain and Halifax had not served in the military were all horrified by the prospect of another war and promoted appeasement of Hitler. Those such as Churchill, Eden, Attlee, Macmillan and Sinclair (the Liberal leader) who had all seen active service in WWI all favoured a firm policy being taken towards Hitler.

Asquith, who was Prime Minister until 1916 and Bonar Law, who was Deputy Prime Minister from 1916-21, both lost sons in WWI yet that did not diminish their determination to continue the war. Eden not only served in the trenches throughout WWI (he joined the army straight after leaving school) but also lost a son in Burma at the end of WWII. This did not deter him from sending troops into Suez in 1956.

[Growler]

Gentlemen, with respect - I wasn't suggesting a ** direct** correlation between seeing combat and sending troops to war with regard to individuals. I was commenting more what I see as a wider change in attitude during my lifetime.

Rob I - my point about Thatcher & Reagan wasn't that they personally saw combat, but that their generation did - a significant number of whom were in power (or opposition) at the time (of the Falklands)

In contast, I'm guessing 95% + of politicians have never even done military service, let alone seen combat. Doesn't it strike you as slightly strange that with a very few exceptions, the vast majority of MPs voted for invasion of Iraq, yet huge swathes of public opinion were sceptical - to put it mildly - of what they were being told.

Regarding Afghanistan - we knew that we wouldn't be fighting a regular standing army with "accepted" rules of engagement. Did no-one learn anything from 30 years of trouble in Ulster? You simply cannot militarily defeat an enemy who look like civilians, mix with civilians, snipe from cover, plant culvert bombs then vanish like mist when the sun rises.

We read all too often of soldiers returning to Lyneham in wooden boxes. Sadly, unlike on the PC there's no reset button ...... when an IED rips your guts out, it is literally game over.

[Allan D]

It still has taken over 8 years for British casualties in Afghanistan to equal those in the Falklands incurred over a few weeks.

[Basil]

It is also highly amusing how swiftly the likes of Lever and B@z (as two exampes on the forum) are quick to condemn the Tories for "lacking policies" before their policies and manifestos are even published!! WhyTF repeat the dose - as with the '05 elections - by showing your intentions early enough for the Socialists to hijack them by cutting and trimming them to suit their clarion call ?!

Wait awhile fellas ... all will be revealed in due course.
The bully's got to nominate a date first ....

The charge of lack of direction still sticks - first the Tories were gung ho about the need to cut public spending, then they soft pedalled when a few economic indicators showed encouraging signs of recovery, now they're back on the "cut now" mantra.

Voters don't like being confused - such indecision could cost the Tories dear.

[LeFromage]

Mrs Pratt has now hired Max Clifford to represent her and defend her actions.

You couldn't make it up.

[Guest]

Gentlemen, with respect - I wasn't suggesting a ** direct** correlation between seeing combat and sending troops to war with regard to individuals. I was commenting more what I see as a wider change in attitude during my lifetime.

Rob I - my point about Thatcher & Reagan wasn't that they personally saw combat, but that their generation did - a significant number of whom were in power (or opposition) at the time (of the Falklands)

I'm not sure of your point mate. Thatcher & Reagan's generation sent troops into Viet Nam, Malaya and the Falklands - a hell of a lot bloodier than the current "police actions" started by Bush 2 & Blair's generation.

[Allan D]

Mrs Pratt has now hired Max Clifford to represent her and defend her actions.

You couldn't make it up.

Not sure I would snort that easily. MC contributed to bringing down the last lot in '97 by distributing damaging stories to the media. As soon as Vanessa Perroncel, the 'hypotenuse' in the John Terry-Wayne Bridge triangle, went to see Max Terry got dumped as England captain. Could GB follow where JT led?

However the most interesting of Max' clients from a political point of view is Loloahi Tapui, the former Tongan housekeeper of Baroness Scotland, the current Attorney-General, who is due to face trial in April on charges of fraudulent deception in obtaining employment and who intends to call Scotland as a witness. The AG will be put into the position of having to admit, on oath, that she inspected her former housekeeper's passport and found nothing wrong with it (in which case she would have failed to spot that the visa stamp was out of date) or that she didn't inspect her passport at all (contrary to her previous statement).

Either way it will appear that GB has yet again reposed his trust in a complete incompetent and this shortly before an election or indeed during the campaign itself. Makes me think that June 3 is a stronger possibility than most commentators currently appear to be suggesting. It also makes sense for a Scotsman to stay in the bar until the last second of closing time..


"See You In Court!"

[LeFromage]

https://i.imgur.com/Z818Z.jpg

[Invader Zim]

Vote Tory and lose the Ashes

[JKLever]

Interesting that the UIMF have recommended countries start paying debt back in 2011 and not this year.

Rather farks up the Tory position a bit.

[Sponsored content]