Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

That's a great question V and as such it deserves some thought if only on the   "should get prosecuted" point alone.

Or perhaps;

Why Parliament was misled.

Why the British people were misled.

Why Ministers of the Crown including the Prime Minister appears to have ignored legal opinion.

Why an unelected Director of Media Communications seems to have been at the heart of these matters of national importance.

Why it seems to have been accepted by a select group within the government that they had the right to adopt a strategy founded on their terms and to suit their overall goals.

Why is seemed so easy to get the national media of this country
‘On message’ so that pertinent questions were not asked as to why this action was really necessary.

Finally, for the moment, why should these people who embarked on this disastrous and unnecessary war not be called to question and asked to explain their motivation for causing a situation the effects of which have destroyed, and will continue to destroy, many lives and waste money that could have been put to better use for the benefit of those within this nation.

We have been the streetwalkers of the United States for much too long now.

Very good questions Zulu, as usual

only not agreed in the last statement..

Its been long time I'm watching Brits and most of them wont go after US..  and I must note the answer for your question is: both economical systems are strongly tied together.. So your politicians do what they are forced to do logically   :-/  (may sound contradictory but true)

That has been the trouble cem. Too many in the political arena in this country, particularly over the last 12 years, have believed that some form of special relationship exists between the UK and USA. I don't believe that it does.

From what I see the US has a foreign policy designed to benefit that country alone and they will exploit others to whatever degree necessary to achieve their goal.  Only in recent times has the policy of the US moved from blatant insular thinking and protectionism to one of being aware of how they are viewed in the world and developing a foreign policy to deal with it.

There may be a common language and a general approximation in values and desires but I think it stops there.  We, in this country, haven't done ourselves any favours by remaining lapdogs sucking at the teat, and in thrall of  this 'great power'

[Varche]

I would love to see Tony B.liar locked in a cell for the rest of his days for this most cynical catastrophe which cost countless thousands of human lives,it is imo the most disgraceful episode in modern British history.Unfortunately the chances are somewhat less than me winning the lottery this weekend, and I havent bought a lottery ticket for 15 years.

Here is your chance. Fame and some money for doing it!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20100127/tuk-website-offers-reward-for-tony-blair-45dbed5.html

[cem_devecioglu]

That's a great question V and as such it deserves some thought if only on the   "should get prosecuted" point alone.

Or perhaps;

Why Parliament was misled.

Why the British people were misled.

Why Ministers of the Crown including the Prime Minister appears to have ignored legal opinion.

Why an unelected Director of Media Communications seems to have been at the heart of these matters of national importance.

Why it seems to have been accepted by a select group within the government that they had the right to adopt a strategy founded on their terms and to suit their overall goals.

Why is seemed so easy to get the national media of this country
‘On message’ so that pertinent questions were not asked as to why this action was really necessary.

Finally, for the moment, why should these people who embarked on this disastrous and unnecessary war not be called to question and asked to explain their motivation for causing a situation the effects of which have destroyed, and will continue to destroy, many lives and waste money that could have been put to better use for the benefit of those within this nation.

We have been the streetwalkers of the United States for much too long now.

Very good questions Zulu, as usual

only not agreed in the last statement..

Its been long time I'm watching Brits and most of them wont go after US..  and I must note the answer for your question is: both economical systems are strongly tied together.. So your politicians do what they are forced to do logically   :-/  (may sound contradictory but true)

That has been the trouble cem. Too many in the political arena in this country, particularly over the last 12 years, have believed that some form of 1.special relationship exists between the UK and USA. I don't believe that it does.

From what I see the US has a foreign policy designed to benefit that country alone and they will exploit others to whatever degree necessary to achieve that goal.  2.Only in recent times has the policy of the US moved from blatant insular thinking and protectionism to one of being aware of how they are viewed in the world and developing a foreign policy to deal with it.

There may be a common language and a general approximation in values and desires but I think it stops there.  We, in this country, haven't done ourselves any favours by remaining lapdogs sucking at the teat, and in thrall of  this 'great power'

1. if you look at the normal (middle ) class British citizen-Usa citizen life  ..yes.. no direct relationship unless there is blood relation.. And in fact, both middle classes suffer daily problems of those nations and they send their children to war :-/

However , there is an elite (not rich very very rich) class in both countries which in fact controls the banks, industry  and market and even rules the governments ..(and who doesnt play their game will  have a ticket to moon with one way only)(long and detailed subject so I dont go further)

They are very strongly coordinated and tied together.. And have hands and legs in both continents.. 

For the US part I can say that the dominating class have the anchestors which are mostly settlers from Britain (although they rebel against the King) .. Just checking their language is enough to proove the historical connection..

and just to give a simple example, even in my country  , no prime minister can sit in his chair more than few months if big brother dont accept..

so, as a result, we vote for a democracy which is not our game arena..

And every politician early or late (not using sooner or later as if late they dont survive ) discovers the rules he must obey or he is going to be swept quickly..

2.Yep.. they discovered the fact , changed the face , so we see Obama now ..

[Dishevelled Den]

That's a great question V and as such it deserves some thought if only on the   "should get prosecuted" point alone.

Or perhaps;

Why Parliament was misled.

Why the British people were misled.

Why Ministers of the Crown including the Prime Minister appears to have ignored legal opinion.

Why an unelected Director of Media Communications seems to have been at the heart of these matters of national importance.

Why it seems to have been accepted by a select group within the government that they had the right to adopt a strategy founded on their terms and to suit their overall goals.

Why is seemed so easy to get the national media of this country
‘On message’ so that pertinent questions were not asked as to why this action was really necessary.

Finally, for the moment, why should these people who embarked on this disastrous and unnecessary war not be called to question and asked to explain their motivation for causing a situation the effects of which have destroyed, and will continue to destroy, many lives and waste money that could have been put to better use for the benefit of those within this nation.

We have been the streetwalkers of the United States for much too long now.

Very good questions Zulu, as usual

only not agreed in the last statement..

Its been long time I'm watching Brits and most of them wont go after US..  and I must note the answer for your question is: both economical systems are strongly tied together.. So your politicians do what they are forced to do logically   :-/  (may sound contradictory but true)

That has been the trouble cem. Too many in the political arena in this country, particularly over the last 12 years, have believed that some form of 1.special relationship exists between the UK and USA. I don't believe that it does.

From what I see the US has a foreign policy designed to benefit that country alone and they will exploit others to whatever degree necessary to achieve that goal.  2.Only in recent times has the policy of the US moved from blatant insular thinking and protectionism to one of being aware of how they are viewed in the world and developing a foreign policy to deal with it.

There may be a common language and a general approximation in values and desires but I think it stops there.  We, in this country, haven't done ourselves any favours by remaining lapdogs sucking at the teat, and in thrall of  this 'great power'

1. if you look at the normal (middle ) class British citizen-Usa citizen life  ..yes.. no direct relationship unless there is blood relation.. And in fact, both middle classes suffer daily problems of those nations and they send their children to war :-/

However , there is an elite (not rich very very rich) class in both countries which in fact controls the banks, industry  and market and even rules the governments ..(and who doesnt play their game will  have a ticket to moon with one way only)(long and detailed subject so I dont go further)

They are very strongly coordinated and tied together.. And have hands and legs in both continents.. 

For the US part I can say that the dominating class have the anchestors which are mostly settlers from Britain (although they rebel against the King) .. Just checking their language is enough to proove the historical connection..

and just to give a simple example, even in my country  , no prime minister can sit in his chair more than few months if big brother dont accept..

so, as a result, we vote for a democracy which is not our game arena..

And every politician early or late (not using sooner or later as if late they dont survive ) discovers the rules he must obey or he is going to be swept quickly..

2.Yep.. they discovered the fact , changed the face , so we see Obama now ..

On point 1 cem I can see what you're getting at - however when it comes to the stage where national interests are considered to be primary, the United States will always stand alone, in my view. 

In events connected with the terrorist campaign by the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in Northern Ireland, the United States, in the main, was certainly not a friend to either this country or to the people over there.

With point 2, President Obama is now discovering that the United States has lost a great deal of credibility on the worldwide front, perhaps never to be reinstated, but more worryingly (for him) on the domestic scene, he is finding that although it seemed to be quite easy to ‘talk the talk’ when campaigning  it's now much more difficult to ‘walk the walk’ of presidential office.

[cem_devecioglu]

That's a great question V and as such it deserves some thought if only on the   "should get prosecuted" point alone.

Or perhaps;

Why Parliament was misled.

Why the British people were misled.

Why Ministers of the Crown including the Prime Minister appears to have ignored legal opinion.

Why an unelected Director of Media Communications seems to have been at the heart of these matters of national importance.

Why it seems to have been accepted by a select group within the government that they had the right to adopt a strategy founded on their terms and to suit their overall goals.

Why is seemed so easy to get the national media of this country
‘On message’ so that pertinent questions were not asked as to why this action was really necessary.

Finally, for the moment, why should these people who embarked on this disastrous and unnecessary war not be called to question and asked to explain their motivation for causing a situation the effects of which have destroyed, and will continue to destroy, many lives and waste money that could have been put to better use for the benefit of those within this nation.

We have been the streetwalkers of the United States for much too long now.

Very good questions Zulu, as usual

only not agreed in the last statement..

Its been long time I'm watching Brits and most of them wont go after US..  and I must note the answer for your question is: both economical systems are strongly tied together.. So your politicians do what they are forced to do logically   :-/  (may sound contradictory but true)

That has been the trouble cem. Too many in the political arena in this country, particularly over the last 12 years, have believed that some form of 1.special relationship exists between the UK and USA. I don't believe that it does.

From what I see the US has a foreign policy designed to benefit that country alone and they will exploit others to whatever degree necessary to achieve that goal.  2.Only in recent times has the policy of the US moved from blatant insular thinking and protectionism to one of being aware of how they are viewed in the world and developing a foreign policy to deal with it.

There may be a common language and a general approximation in values and desires but I think it stops there.  We, in this country, haven't done ourselves any favours by remaining lapdogs sucking at the teat, and in thrall of  this 'great power'

1. if you look at the normal (middle ) class British citizen-Usa citizen life  ..yes.. no direct relationship unless there is blood relation.. And in fact, both middle classes suffer daily problems of those nations and they send their children to war :-/

However , there is an elite (not rich very very rich) class in both countries which in fact controls the banks, industry  and market and even rules the governments ..(and who doesnt play their game will  have a ticket to moon with one way only)(long and detailed subject so I dont go further)

They are very strongly coordinated and tied together.. And have hands and legs in both continents.. 

For the US part I can say that the dominating class have the anchestors which are mostly settlers from Britain (although they rebel against the King) .. Just checking their language is enough to proove the historical connection..

and just to give a simple example, even in my country  , no prime minister can sit in his chair more than few months if big brother dont accept..

so, as a result, we vote for a democracy which is not our game arena..

And every politician early or late (not using sooner or later as if late they dont survive ) discovers the rules he must obey or he is going to be swept quickly..

2.Yep.. they discovered the fact , changed the face , so we see Obama now ..

On point 1 cem I can see what you're getting at - however when it comes to the 1.stage where national interests are considered to be primary, the United States will always stand alone, in my view. 

2.In events connected with the terrorist campaign by the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in Northern Ireland, the United States, in the main, was certainly not a friend to either this country or to the people over there.

With point 2, 3.President Obama is now discovering that the United States has lost a great deal of credibility on the worldwide front, perhaps never to be reinstated, but more worryingly (for him) on the domestic scene, he is finding that although it seemed to be quite easy to ‘talk the talk’ when campaigning  it's now much more difficult to ‘walk the walk’ of presidential office.

1. Definitely agreed..   also if you look at their armies (say number of aircraft carriers) its so visible that their interest is for overseas and not for local defence

2. That was a truth that I didnt know before OOF.. Some members stated that fact .. but imho not a surprise.. we have our very similiar problem..

3.yep.. how you say "easier sad than done"..
Obama has a very difficult position and historical task..
its the internet age , even he sneezes we hear.. and nations now look in the actions not the words.. :-/

[cem_devecioglu]

small heading but critical subject :-/

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-campaign-finance-analysis22-2010jan22,0,7041058.story

"The ruling removes limits on corporations from spending their money on federal races, meaning that companies -- and probably labor unions -- will be free, for instance, to buy up advertising time days and weeks before an election to support or attack a potential candidate, perhaps creating slick spots with high production values similar to drug or car ads, or purchasing large blocks of network time."

and this one

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24address.html?hpw

[Dishevelled Den]

small heading but critical subject :-/

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-campaign-finance-analysis22-2010jan22,0,7041058.story

"The ruling removes limits on corporations from spending their money on federal races, meaning that companies -- and probably labor unions -- will be free, for instance, to buy up advertising time days and weeks before an election to support or attack a potential candidate, perhaps creating slick spots with high production values similar to drug or car ads, or purchasing large blocks of network time."

and this one

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24address.html?hpw

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-campaign-finance-analysis22-2010jan22,0,7041058.story


Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling could bring flood of ads


US campaign advertising has always been fairly hard-hitting, especially when compared to the Party Election Broadcasts in the UK.

The amount of money spent - $2.6 billion in the 2008 election cycle - suggests that this medium carries a great degree of clout when it comes to getting a message heard.

This ruling does merit concern as you rightly point out, as it seems that the possibility of those having the deepest pockets will perhaps be in a better position to place a candidate of choice who will represent their interests, to the detriment of others.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24address.html?hpw

Obama Turns Up Heat Over Ruling on Campaign Spending

President Obama may have some difficulty getting this ruling watered-down - but then he is working from a partisan agenda;

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals

This will indeed be an interesting story to follow cem.