D
Deleted member 49
Guest
To please the American war machine...we can speculate on it if you want,but It doesn't change the facts.
Starmer's vision quest
- Thread starter mjr
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
multitool
Shaman
The fact is Blair pushed for, and got, a war.
I want you to explain what you think Blair's motivation was. Fear of attack? Hubris? Promise of legacy of statesmanship?
You seem to think he just did it to please Bush, but as I said, UK involvement was a tiny pimple. Made very little difference.
newfhouse
pleb
Are you sure? What use would that be to the arms industry?
icowden
Legendary Member
A stable base to trade from. Not stability in the middle east. Just one western owned country with all the oil.
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
Might of been a few sweeteners aswell.
https://declassifieduk.org/bp-extracted-iraqi-oil-worth-15bn-after-british-invasion/
monkers
Guru
Your question was not posed to me, and of course opinions will vary.
If you ask me, it isn't possible to reach PM without an ego which is outsize to what is usual, then it tends to grow with observable complacency. A large parliamentary majority cements the idea in the egoist that everybody loves them. That's why narrow majorities and a few losses in the voting lobbies helps to apply an inward pressure to the otherwise ballooning ego.
Blair wanted to go along with Bush's false dichotomy of 'you're either with us or against us' because his ego wanted the world to see he was playing in the big boys game at the big boys table.
Personally I think Blair deserved to be committed to jail for his part but the offence of Misconduct in Public Office did not exist at that time, but followed along shortly after in 2003.
I remember on hearing Robin Cook's wonderfully eloquent and heartfelt plea in his cabinet resignation speech, and the impassioned speech from Tony Benn, that parliament could not in good faith vote for war, but they did. The Tories love to condemn Blair, but how quickly they think we will forget how they played their part - they voted for it too, despite Cook at least alluding to the fact that Blair was lying.
Continuing the ego theme, and people might understand my objection to Johnson ever becoming PM, and my fear that a big majority would inflate his ego further with the result of damaging the country. I feared that if the USA went to war with Russia that Johnson with his Churchillian pretensions would drag us quickly into a war that escalate to world war.
Maybe what we need is a limit to the number of years a PM can serve in the UK as in other places?
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
Tough on crime....tough on the causes of crime 🤣
In his tough on crime speech Sir Keir Starmer says the smell of cannabis wafting through windows of family homes in neighbourhoods is "ruining in lives"
In his tough on crime speech Sir Keir Starmer says the smell of cannabis wafting through windows of family homes in neighbourhoods is "ruining in lives"
newfhouse
pleb
Unless it's home grown it's possible he's right. It's not all farmed and marketed by ethically minded workers' cooperatives.
monkers
Guru
I don't think that is the crime that is on everybody's lips right now (pun unintentional).
I tend to think most people are as concerned about the perceived lack of police interest when reporting a crime as the crime itself - seems to be a running theme from what I see.
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
Right about what,like this is anything to do with the real problems of society ....it's everywhere how about legalizing,taxing it etc.The war on drugs has ruined far more lives than smoking Cannabis.
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
newfhouse
pleb
The illicit drugs trade ruining lives.
The violence, misery and slavery often involved in cultivation is a real problem. You and I may even agree on ways to reduce it, and that will likely be different to Starmer's view, but saying it doesn't matter won't help.
I'd like politicians to be able to carry more than one thought in their head at the same time.
monkers
Guru
So legalise it? Tongue in cheek here, but still a question worth asking.
I haven't listened to much of the Starmer speech to be honest, but the bit I did hear was about his concern for people's cannabis smoke entering children's bedroom windows and harming them. He also spoke about needing to carry public opinion when changing the law. Maybe a little naughty of me but I summed those two and thought, 'do you really think Mr Starmer that public concern into crime rates, low charge rates, low prosecution rates, low convictions rates, etc is the crime concern that people are thinking about, or is it really the threat of cannabis smoke getting through their windows at night'. I can only speak for myself, but I think he has this perception of public wrong.
newfhouse
pleb
From what I've read I think decriminalisation is worth a try.
My only knowledge of it came from Adam's comment and that's all I was responding to. I don't know the wider content or context.
D
Deleted member 49
Guest
There's more if you want to hear it,personally speaking I think the thought of him as PM might make me take smoking weed up again....the blokes on a roll.Tough on crime 🙄
“Fly-tipping, off-road biking in rural communities, drugs… Some people call this low-level - I don’t want to hear those words.”
