TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Tony Blair
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Tony Blair

I think I'm yet to respect a politician more than this fella (except Clinton maybe). Has any1 seen his performance at this MTV debate show? Brilliant to have such a genuine politician with this courage and an open mind. Blair was the ONLY politician to be ready to enter a dialougue with youths from all around the world. While Rumsfeld basically agreed but had no time, out pathetic sccumbags Chriac and Schroeder simply rejected the offer. No matter what you think about Blair's position you gotta give the guy credit for allowing curious people like us to directly confront him with their concerns and questions (which also dealt with the Israeli, Kurdish and Serbian conflicts). Anyway I'm pretty proud to be on the side of men like him instead of going along the path of the ego-centric hypocrites Schroeder and Chirac.

?

? what's so hard to understand?

There was this show of MTV Europe, topic being "Is war the answer?". They asked several politicians to come, sit down and answer questions from young people who came from all over the world. Blair had the guts to come and did a great job. I find it admiring that he takes his time to actually listen to people's concerns and try to justify his position. Kinda leaves me some hope that politics is not only about money, power and lies.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant ? what's so hard to understand? There was this show of MTV Europe, topic being "Is war the answer?". They asked several politicians to come, sit down and answer questions from young people who came from all over the world. Blair had the guts to come and did a great job. I find it admiring that he takes his time to actually listen to people's concerns and try to justify his position. Kinda leaves me some hope that politics is not only about money, power and lies.

You know, I think you should admire a politician based on their actions over any certain time frame, not because they put up some false facade. Blair can pretend he cares about people's concerns all he wants, but I and many others know he's as much of a turd as Bush. So wait wait, for real now, this still isn't sinking in, you drew the conclusion that because Blair decided to come on an MTV show this one isolated time and spew out BS about his and Bush's efforts to help the middle east, that he's on the side of good and Chirac and Schroeder are on the side of evil?

quote:

Kinda leaves me some hope that politics is not only about money, power and lies.

NO.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant ? what's so hard to understand? There was this show of MTV Europe, topic being "Is war the answer?". They asked several politicians to come, sit down and answer questions from young people who came from all over the world. Blair had the guts to come and did a great job. I find it admiring that he takes his time to actually listen to people's concerns and try to justify his position. Kinda leaves me some hope that politics is not only about money, power and lies.

- Yeah, I do agree with that Blair, been right or wrong, has the guts to face and answer questions. I took this as an example when people were on the protest against war, Blair came and at least talked about his position and what he thought about it, while Bush was all hidden, he didnt even appear nor talked about the ANTI-WAR movement.

Well.. I don't know if i'd say i have respect for Blair. He is after all taking a position that the overwhelming majority of citizens in his country don't agree with, not to mention his own cabinent. I severly doubt he will be re-elected, he has sacrificed his career on this issue.

So, while he may not have integrity, he at least has balls, as further evidenced by his willingness to go on MTV europe. I wish i could have seen that.

for what it's worth, Bill Graham, the canadian minister of foreign affairs went on a similar show in canada, also called "Is war the answer" broadcast commercial free for 2 hours on CBC, canadas national TV network.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Well.. I don't know if i'd say i have respect for Blair. He is after all taking a position that the overwhelming majority of citizens in his country don't agree with, not to mention his own cabinent. I severly doubt he will be re-elected, he has sacrificed his career on this issue. So, while he may not have integrity, he at least has balls, as further evidenced by his willingness to go on MTV europe. I wish i could have seen that. for what it's worth, Bill Graham, the canadian minister of foreign affairs went on a similar show in canada, also called "Is war the answer" broadcast commercial free for 2 hours on CBC, canadas national TV network.

Well if he's not doing it for reelection maybe you have to admire the man for doing what he truly believes in. Like how could this possibly benefit him? Many in Britain are probably gonna hate the guy for a long time for doing this. I don't care what the issue is about, I take satisfaction in seeing that there are still politicians out there who aren't just trying to cover their own asses.

Re: Tony Blair

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant I think I'm yet to respect a politician more than this fella (except Clinton maybe). Has any1 seen his performance at this MTV debate show? Brilliant to have such a genuine politician with this courage and an open mind. Blair was the ONLY politician to be ready to enter a dialougue with youths from all around the world. While Rumsfeld basically agreed but had no time, out pathetic sccumbags Chriac and Schroeder simply rejected the offer. No matter what you think about Blair's position you gotta give the guy credit for allowing curious people like us to directly confront him with their concerns and questions (which also dealt with the Israeli, Kurdish and Serbian conflicts). Anyway I'm pretty proud to be on the side of men like him instead of going along the path of the ego-centric hypocrites Schroeder and Chirac.

Colin Powell also appeared on MTV for the same show... He also gave great responses to many of the questions asked/debated. Unfortunately, he is in the position that he cannot openly speak his mind on issues.

quote:

Originally posted by Nalin So wait wait, for real now, this still isn't sinking in, you drew the conclusion that because Blair decided to come on an MTV show this one isolated time and spew out BS about his and Bush's efforts to help the middle east, that he's on the side of good and Chirac and Schroeder are on the side of evil?

No, I do look at actions and not words. That's the point actually. Go read the "Since I'm feeling it" thread where I elaborate on why I disrespect Schroder and Chriac (who sacrifice the transatlantic friendship and alliance for the sake of their own personal status). In Blair's case it's the act of showing up at a "kiddie" show and answering questions which lets me admire the guy, much more than the actual content of his answers. I just find it totally unsurprising that Chriac, whose political moves I find hypocritical dangerous and egoistic, confirms his cowardice by refusing to justify his position and enter a dialogue with us people. Si?

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Well.. I don't know if i'd say i have respect for Blair. He is after all taking a position that the overwhelming majority of citizens in his country don't agree with, not to mention his own cabinent.

And?
You think that leaders should always take the position of their electorate?

If so, you are very wrong.
If the leader always listened to the opinion of all the people he governs, there would be anarchy and chaos and no hard decisions would be taken.

The electorate's job is to elect a leader.
Then the leader decides the course of his country based on the facts and horizons available and visible to him as a leader.

Don't be so naive

And indeed, if Blair has the guts to stand up and explain his course of action and debate in the face of widespread opposition and present his convincing arguments in a coherent and persuasive way, I have the utmost respect for the man.

quote:

Originally posted by Eugene And? You think that leaders should always take the position of their electorate? If so, you are very wrong. If the leader always listened to the opinion of all the people he governs, there would be anarchy and chaos and no hard decisions would be taken. The electorate's job is to elect a leader. Then the leader decides the course of his country based on the facts and horizons available and visible to him as a leader. Don't be so naive And indeed, if Blair has the guts to stand up and explain his course of action and debate in the face of widespread opposition and present his convincing arguments in a coherent and persuasive way, I have the utmost respect for the man.

Agreed, keep in mind that some of these people have a clearer understanding of the situation than you or I. Not to say that we are all dumber, but they have access to intelligence and secretive information that is never released to the public. Yes we can say that our elected officials are idiots but hey ... we're the morons that elected them into office. Learn to accept responsibility.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Agreed, keep in mind that some of these people have a clearer understanding of the situation than you or I. Not to say that we are all dumber, but they have access to intelligence and secretive information that is never released to the public. Yes we can say that our elected officials are idiots but hey ... we're the morons that elected them into office. Learn to accept responsibility.

You know, of all the message boards I've checked out, this one seems to have some of the most sensible, rational posts I've read (you judge whether that is bad or good). Very refreshing.

?!?! do you seriously believe that the intention of an elected government is to give the PM carte blanche for the length of his term?

we may as well be living in a monarchy or dictatorship. I can understand the US, where support for the war is at least over 50%, but in Britain, support is WAY below half the population, I believe it's something like 13% without another UN resolution (which won't be happening now) I could be wrong, but the numbers are low, the protests are high, and key government officials are resigning in protest.

quote:

Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience ... Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring - Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, 1950

JohnSmith, you are very naive, if you believe that politics is as simple as the leader always following the "will of the people" (if such a thing even exists).

I suggest you broaden your horizons.

Have you ever wondered why, in the US, the President is elected not really by the people, but by the electoral college?

A very pertinent question for your research. When you find out, come back with an answer we'll continue our discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith Well.. I don't know if i'd say i have respect for Blair. He is after all taking a position that the overwhelming majority of citizens in his country don't agree with, not to mention his own cabinent. I severly doubt he will be re-elected, he has sacrificed his career on this issue.

There is NO real opposition here, the Conservatives are stuck up gits and ppl hate them, The Lib Dems aren't big enough, Labour will prob win again imo

As long as any government declares itself as a democracy, it is obligated to inform people on the situation and take no action that is against the will of the majority.

quote:

Have you ever wondered why, in the US, the President is elected not really by the people, but by the electoral college?

Two reasons for it. First one is that it was a simpler way to go through the elections at the time when there were no telephones or fast intercity connections. Second one was to give the states which make up the US some sort of autonomy. That's why the US is officialy a federation and not a unitary country.

thanks drug_tito!

Re: Tony Blair

quote:

Originally posted by TranceGiant I think I'm yet to respect a politician more than this fella (except Clinton maybe).

Clinton? Respect? son, you must be confused.... even many Democrats lost respect for that wanker after his excellent *performance* regarding Ms. Monica



>JM<

Re: Re: Tony Blair

'Tis better to do what is right... than to do what is popular. Otherwise, you have nothing but mob rule, no?

Re: Re: Tony Blair

quote:

Originally posted by JM Clinton? Respect? son, you must be confused.... even many Democrats lost respect for that wanker after his excellent *performance* regarding Ms. Monica >JM<

oohhh god! Clinton had *sex* with someone!!?!? call the moral police!

and SHE was the one performing...how can you talk shit about that? i long for the days where problems like that were all that concerned US citizens. at least thousands of iraqis didnt have to die for that - shit hillary didnt even seem to care. thats why they call him slick willy. his only problem was trying to be too diplomatic|even if that included interns....

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 As long as any government declares itself as a democracy, it is obligated to inform people on the situation and take no action that is against the will of the majority. Two reasons for it. First one is that it was a simpler way to go through the elections at the time when there were no telephones or fast intercity connections. Second one was to give the states which make up the US some sort of autonomy. That's why the US is officialy a federation and not a unitary country.

So by your reasoning the United States should have never entered WW2, and should have never provided the lend-lease program to Britain? If you recall back to that time period, Roosevelt almost had to SWINDLE the American public into helping Britain. At that time America was very isolationist, was sick of entering "European conflicts" (aka WW1), and Roosevelt won a reelection by adamantely stating that America would NOT enter the war.

So again I ask you, should Roosevelt have been obligated to stay out of the war completely??? Another case was WW1 when Wilson was in office. AGAIN we see the same scenario where an American President acted against the majority of the nation. I don't hear very many complaints about those issues!

Lastly a government is NOT obligated to inform the people completely about a given situation. Especially when it pertains to matters of national security. Can you imagine the cold war turning out the way it did if the government was yapping about this that and everything??? The soviets would be completely aware of our intelligence gathering abilities not to mention the CIA would be put out of business in terms of agents.

Regardless of the effect, it was still done against the will of the majority. However, it was a good thing those actions were taken. I never said though, that true democracy is the best political system.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Regardless of the effect, it was still done against the will of the majority. However, it was a good thing those actions were taken. I never said though, that true democracy is the best political system.

Haha so on the one hand you're critisizing the US for failing to practice true democracy and then on the other hand you're critisizing true democracy as being a good political system. Why do I get the feeling I'm going around in circles?

Democracy is a pretty good system compared to the other ones, but it's far from perfect. But if a country has declared itself as a democratic country, then it should behave in a democratic way.

So by your standards EVERY "democratic" country is guilty of not adhering to true democracy. The last true democracy were the Romans and even then it was faulty due to who actually qualified as "citizens."

And actually more than 50% of the country agree with Bush's actions according to the latest polls. So relish in our democracy

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.