|
Author
|
Topic: Thank You Tony Blair
|
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 10-02- 10:24 AM
   
Brilliant speech today!!!  IP: Logged |
Burkey
Pilot
|
posted 10-02- 01:40 PM
I agree Jerry. honest question, what do you think about the new stance on ecological issues?IP: Logged |
Smokey
Pilot
|
posted 10-02- 03:09 PM
Sounds to me like Blair has more balls than
Bush has.IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 10-02- 05:31 PM
Burkey, whose new stance?Smokey, what did Blair say that Bush hadn't. Granted, Blair said it better. He's a much better public speaker (or maybe he has better speech writers  ). IP: Logged |
Smokey
Pilot
|
posted 10-02- 08:17 PM
He flat out said either give Bin Ladin up or
loose power. Bush won't say it. Bush seems to
me to do too much pussyfooting around. They
openly admit that Bin Ladin is under their
protection. I see no more reason for talking.
We may not know where Bin Ladin is but we
sure as hell know where their capitol building
is.IP: Logged |
Lothar
Pilot
|
posted 10-02- 08:23 PM
The news has been hinting that the shit is flying towards the fan right now, it will hit very soon.I'm going to predict that we have military strikes in Afgahnistan before Friday at 12pm EST. IP: Logged |
DanW
Pilot
|
posted 10-02- 09:14 PM
I hope so...the coke sniffer from Texas is starting to piss me off. IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 10-02- 11:32 PM
Smokey, two weeks ago when Bush addressed the joint houses of Congress he said that the Taliban must turn over bin laden and his associates or face the same fate as him. He went on to say that this demand was not negotiable. What do you think he meant that is any different from what Blair said?[This message has been edited by Jerry (edited 10-02-2001).] IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 10-02- 11:36 PM
DanW, glad to see that your normal partisan liberal politics are more important to you than supporting our President in time of war. You don't surprise me a bit.  IP: Logged |
Burkey
Pilot
|
posted 10-03- 03:30 AM
Jerry, blair talked about how we should never see temperature+climate change, how Africa is a scar on the Western worlds conciense (sp - neveer can spell that world) and how the western world WILL do something about it. IP: Logged |
Jonners
Pilot
|
posted 10-03- 07:33 AM
Quoted from 'Letters to the Editor', The Times, 3rd October 2001:'Sir, I believe it is totally inappropriate for the Prime Minister to be leaking his intention to declare war on the Taleban (report, October 2), a)from the position of aspiring "Best Supproting Actor" in the Afghanistan drama, b) in a press release ahead of his actually uttering the words, and c) to the Labour party conference. Any such significant statements on the issue should surely be made in Parliament' I'd hate to think Blair was scoring politcal points for his own party out of this tragedy, or maybe I'm too cynical, like the gentleman who wrote this letter..... IP: Logged |
Sv
JAG
|
posted 10-03- 07:40 AM
Blair is just being a leader... he is "saying" things, not "doing" things. People forget that vision is an important reason we still focus power in individuals... I think his speach was indeed brilliant. I didn't find Bush's message any softer, just more narrow in scope, focused on "us" and not the global audience. I think Blair translates the message well for the world... IP: Logged |
Snickers
Pilot
|
posted 10-03- 09:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lothar:
The news has been hinting that the shit is flying towards the fan right now, it will hit very soon.I'm going to predict that we have military strikes in Afgahnistan before Friday at 12pm EST.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Let them sweat for a bit.... Bush is playing this just right.
------------------
Snickers
=FC=
Thou shalt maintaineth altitude, lest the earth rise up and smite thee.
 IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 10-03- 12:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Burkey:
I agree Jerry. honest question, what do you think about the new stance on ecological issues?(also) Jerry, blair talked about how we should never see temperature+climate change, how Africa is a scar on the Western worlds conciense (sp - neveer can spell that world) and how the western world WILL do something about it.
I still don't see anything here that is a "new" stance on ecology. What am I missing? Also, what does the Western world's shameful ignoring of Africa have to do with a "new stance on ecological issues"? IP: Logged |
Lothar
Pilot
|
posted 10-03- 12:19 PM
Snickers, I'm not a big fan of military strikes. They have as much potential to harm us as to help us. However, I agree that Bush and his strategerizers are playing this just right. Their willingness to wait gives me confidence that they won't use military force in a way which is counter to our cause, e.g. many civilian casualties.I also think its brilliant the way Pakistan is playing the "good cop" to our "bad cop". The Taliban must really be sweating by now. IP: Logged |
Burkey
Pilot
|
posted 10-03- 12:28 PM
Jerry, the way I've seen it portrayed in the British press, Blair will use the new strength given to the United nations coalition, which obviously is primarily concerned with international terrorism in the present climate, as an oportunity to persuade the united states to fall more in line on issues such as the kyoto conference etc. The press is also stating that Blair will push for 'nation building' action off the back of this, something which they say the United states is none to keen on.IP: Logged |
Burkey
Pilot
|
posted 10-03- 12:31 PM
Jerry, ecology was maybe the wrong word, perhaps I should have said environmental...IP: Logged |
Smokey
Pilot
|
posted 10-03- 02:54 PM
The window of opportunity to start taking care
of Afganistan and Bin Ladin is slipping by.
The last I heard 3 countries (middle eastern
I think) were getting cold feet about supporting us in military action. Bush is doing
too much pussyfooting around and the way he's
handling it is very likely going to get us into
another Viet Nam.In WWII we bombed Germany into the stone age
and we bombed half of France who was our ally.
We turned parts of Japan into smoldering cinders. We didn't give a shit about civilian
casualties. It has been known for 50+ years
that this is the penalty for attacking the
US. I don't see any reason to change it. The
Taliban openly admits to sheltering Bin Ladin.
It's time for Bush to quit playing games. IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 10-03- 03:32 PM
Smokey, we didn't start bombing Germany right away. We waited until our Air Force was built up and could do it right. For months we bombed targets in France, and the first of those (Rouen) wasn't until August of 42. We didn't rush into it blind and unprepared like you seem to be asking that we do now.Even Doolittle's raid on Japan was 6 month's after Pearl Harbor and it was close to a suicide mission. You know damn well that if we had launched a knee-jerk attack on Afganistan just to be attacking something that you would be complaining about Bush being trigger happy. You will always be against him no matter what he does or how he does it. IP: Logged |
Smokey
Pilot
|
posted 10-03- 06:51 PM
We would have started bombing Japan the day
after Pearl Harbor if we could. We had to wait
and build up logistics and equipment before
we could bomb either Japan or Germany. This
is not the case today. We know where there
govt. is. Where these ruling Taliban are.
It's time to take them out. I just saw some
stuff on the news about how they treat their
people. Something about torturing and killing
500 people in one evening. We'd be doing the
Afgan population a favor if we dropped a
tommahawk in on one of their meetings.IP: Logged |
Sv
JAG
|
posted 10-03- 07:09 PM
Hmmm. I say we start with Iraq. The thought of biological warefare freeks me out... there is NO more evil worse than this! To unleash this is an unthinkable act and is pure treason against humanity.We know where they are, this is no excuse. Then right after that we can do the taliban too, but I'm not sure that is as easy... IP: Logged |
Wing Chaps
Pilot
|
posted 10-03- 07:52 PM
I'm back from my TAD...First off, I'm very proud of the speach of Blair's... I'm also proud of the well wishes from all over the world, including Canada and France. I was tickled at Japan's leader as well. I'm not a fan of the UN, because the UN tends to speak with the voice of a committee, and a committee sometimes dominated by, gently put, people I disagree with. The above mentioned world leaders spoke much more clearly, forcefully, supportively. I think it's wise to note that Bush's role is slightly different from the above. The above are being SUPPORTIVE. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm damn proud and grateful, beyond words, to get the support. When I heard that Canada might (would?) send F/A-18s, I nearly cried. A dream of mine would be to see a squadron of those join the US Navy and Marine Corps squadrons of my Carrier Wing 3 (our -18 squadrons are VFA-37 Bulls, VFA-105 Gunslingers, and soon VMFA-115) aboard the USS Harry S Truman on our next cruise. And how about a British, Spanish, and French carrier in the battle group? But these guys can speak a little more boldly... ...than Bush, who's taken on the role as LEADER. Bush has to gauge his words carefully to get the maximum effect, the most nations on board, for two reasons. One, the more nations on board, the more isolated the terrorists are. Two, the more nations on board, the bigger the hammer. In
Western lingo (language from the American West), Bush is linin' up his posse'. Blair can be more blunt because Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt will be more forgiving of it than from Bush. More accurately, if it's from Blair, it isn't immediately taken as emotionally in the streets of those nations as if from Bush. And I'd really like to have friends in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, the UAE, and I'd be much abliged not to have to get into it with Syria. Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran are quite enough. And there are still more out there, not least of which is North Korea. I like Bush just like he is. Plays his cards close to his chest. Code of the West... Chaps out IP: Logged |
WWDubya
Pilot
|
posted 10-04- 09:19 AM
Also keep in mind that many of those whom we consider allies now, will become non-allies sometime before this business of ours has come to some kind of conclusion. In fact, I beleive that some of them will actually become enemies; like Iran. Iran, as odd as it sounds, is looking more and more like a tentative, somewhat reluctant, allie in the beginnings of this operation. They are as eager to get rid of the Taliban as we are. However, it is my beleif that once we have both served our purpose and accomplished certain, unwritten goals, we will end up turning on each other, or at least become cold towards each other again. Before this ordeal is over, I feel that we will have made--and broken--several "alliances-of-convenience." Alliances for the next few months/years, will be as flexible as a piece of rubber, and as permanent as a wisp of fog. Dub IP: Logged |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
