|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 5:37 am Post subject: Use this Thread to Make Fun of Brits |
 |
|
I'm a little surprised that no one has called the British people nasty names after they re-elected Tony Blair. Surely after the stupid Americans re-elected Dubya there will be an outcry from anti-Blair Brits as well as those of other nationalities that don't agree with the PM.
Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing whether they use the same names they used for President Bush or whether Blair gets his own personalized set of put-downs. Also, what is the name for British red-necks? Surely the British people will get called all kinds of nasty, filthy stuff. This should be good!
So, use this thread! Fire away!
I'm waiting patiently... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who cares about the British election? I know it is more exciting to them than east enders, but really, the fate of the world thankfully no longer rests in their hands.
I understand they have almost abolished the conservative party now, due to the efffeminacy of their candidates, so Blair should've had an easy ride in thanks to his make-up artists and "spin doctors". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't think it's quite analogous to the US election - weren't the Conservatives even more supportive of the war in Iraq than Blair's party? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Filthy, lice-ridden swine they are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sundubuman
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
ok...
they are nefarious purveyors of witticisms and scandalously involved in verbal oneupmanship.
just a Midwest perspective on the scoundrels... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stat
Joined: 22 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
hello, i live in England.
Blair is a warmonger it is true. But he is also (New) Labour, so we were kinda stuck between a rock and a hard place. What's the main alternative to Labour? The Tories. Most of us still remember Maggie Thatcher and shudder.
As I see it, the general attitude here is hostile to Blair - the spin, the lies, some of his right-wing policies. But there's also a huge amount of fear that the Tories might get in.
If you look at the results, the Liberal Democrats did very well on an anti-war platform (as well as anti-top up fees, anti council tax, and supporting a 50% tax on incomes over £100 000 pa - more 'Labour' than New Labour!). Also, George Galloway of Respect defeated Ms King of Labour almost SOLELY on an anti-war platform. The Lib Dems got 23 (ish) % of the vote.
As the Lib Dems rise, more people will move away from Labour and the Tories.
I think it's wrong to say that the British support Blair and his policies just because Labour won again. A closer look shows that we're f**king p**sed off with New Labour - they polled the lowest percentage vote in over a hundred years.
ps the bbc has excellent online coverage of the election - if you go to any page on the election, there is a button on the top right that lets you view video highlights.
pps one such highlight is George Galloway's response to Jeremy Paxman's question: "Are you proud of having removed one of the only black women from parliament?" Classic! You can find the link to the video here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/blog/4519553.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
weatherman
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Liked how domestic issues got spoken of. Bush and his neo-cons have a pretty good domestic plan if only they could promote it better. The left is over. This coming from a recovering liberal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh c'mon people! You can do better than this!
Where are all the references to Blair being monkey-like? Surely we should be entertaining some notions of a stolen election! And what about the British people themselves? Hey, the Americans didn't get a pass when they didn't have a viable alternative to Bush so let those Brits have it! So, maybe the Brits aren't Bible-thumpers but they have to be thumping something to put Blair back in power! Insult their intelligence! Make snide remarks about in-breeding! You libs are ticked off, aren't you?
You are angry, right?
I'm still patiently waiting... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I always liked Tony, except for this Iraq thing. I suspect a lot of Brits feel this way as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wannago is right on this one.
All along, the criticism on this board has been aimed at the US while ignoring the role of the UK. Double standards are standard around here, but that doesn't make them pretty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Oh c'mon people! You can do better than this!
Where are all the references to Blair being monkey-like? Surely we should be entertaining some notions of a stolen election! And what about the British people themselves? Hey, the Americans didn't get a pass when they didn't have a viable alternative to Bush so let those Brits have it! So, maybe the Brits aren't Bible-thumpers but they have to be thumping something to put Blair back in power! Insult their intelligence! Make snide remarks about in-breeding! You libs are ticked off, aren't you?
You are angry, right?
I'm still patiently waiting. |
There's a big difference between Blair a Bush. One is smart and articulate, the other aint quite so.
Blair is a good prime minister and his track record is pretty good. He doesn't have to mention the word "freedom" 14 times in a speech to gather support.
I would also have to say that the people of the UK may also disagree with Blair on Iraq but still feel he is worthy of his position. Many who supported Bush supported him for his stand on Iraq, and that there is a clear difference.
Also keep in mind that Blair only got about 36 percent of the vote. That's much lower that what Bush got.
You should also take note that maybe some of us are kinder on Blair than Bush simply because of respect.
For non-Brits, we don't really care because the UK doesn't wield so much influence and doesn't try to over step its bounderies. It tries to be the heavy in the EU but it's not much of a power. It sees a strong relationship with the U.S. as a way of gaining more power and influence in the world but this doesn't really give them any more freedom.
I must also say that I have never heard a Brit say that Iraq had to be invaded because they thought that Iraq was a threat to their nation, where as I have heard this so many times from Americans. A couple of years ago many Americans thought that Iraq was involved in 9-11, and that wasn't the case in the UK.
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON - In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
The numbers
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war.
In Selma, Ala., firefighter Thomas Wilson supports going to war with Iraq, and brings up Sept. 11 himself, saying we don't know who's already here in the US waiting to attack. When asked what that has to do with Iraq, he replies: "They're all in it together - all of them hate this country." The reason: "prosperity."
Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden himself recently encouraged the perception of a link, when he encouraged attacks on the US in response to a US war against Iraq. But, terror experts note, common animosity toward the United States does not make Hussein and Mr. bin Laden allies.
Hussein, a secularist, and bin Laden, a Muslim fundamentalist, are known to despise each other. Bin Laden's stated sympathies are always toward the Iraqi people, not the regime.
This is not to say that Hussein has no link to terrorists. Over the years, terrorist leader Abu Nidal - who died in Baghdad last year - used Iraq as a sometime base. Terrorism experts also don't rule out that some Al Qaeda fighters have slipped into Iraqi territory.
The point, says Eric Larson, a senior policy analyst at RAND who specializes in public opinion and war, is that the US public understands what Hussein is all about - which includes his invasion of two countries and the use of biological and chemical agents. "He's expressed interest - and done more than that - in trying to develop a nuclear capability," says Mr. Larson. "In general, the public is rattled about this.... There's a jumble of attitudes in many Americans' minds, which fit together as a mosaic that [creates] a basic predisposition for military action against Saddam."
Future fallout
In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.
"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [Bush] will have to face when it's all over."
Antiwar activist Daniel Ellsberg says it's important to understand why public opinion appears to be playing out differently in the US and Europe. In fact, both peoples express a desire to work through the UN. But the citizens get different messages from their leaders. "Americans have been told by their president [that Hussein is] a threat to security, and so they believe that," says Mr. Ellsberg. "It's rather amazing, in light of that, that so many Americans do want this to be authorized by the UN. After all, the president keeps saying we don't have to ask the UN for permission to defend ourselves."
You see, your president said that the U.S. doesn't need permission from the UN to protect itself. Clearly, Iraq was not a threat. The war was not in self-defense and was a clear case of American aggression. Why doesn't he come right out and say "America can invade any country as it chooses as we have done it before and that makes it right
Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.
Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.
The belief in the connection persists even though there has been no proof of a link between the two.
President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq. Claims of possible links have never been proven, however.
Veteran pollsters say the persistent belief of a link between the attacks and Saddam could help explain why public support for the decision to go to war in Iraq has been so resilient despite problems establishing a peaceful country.
The president frequently has called the Iraq war an important centerpiece in the United States' war on terror. But some members of the administration have said recently they don't believe there is a direct link.
The Post poll of 1,003 adults was taken Aug. 7-11 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
A Time magazine/CNN poll released Saturday said most Americans — 71% — believe the United States has done a good job in Iraq since the end of major fighting, while 26% said it has done a poor job.
Sixty-three percent said the nation was right in going to war in Iraq and 32% said it was wrong. But the Time/CNN poll found Americans more closely split on whether the military action was worth the price in America lives, taxpayer dollars and other costs — 49% said yes, 43% no and 8% were unsure.
The poll also found Bush's approval down to 52%, from 63% in May.
.
At one time, the British public did support the war in Iraq but that soon changed (61% at first and then down to 43% son after) once they realized that they had been duked, but Americans still supported the war effort when it was clear that Iraq was not the threat that it was made out to be.
This is the real difference; the British know that their country made a mistake, but the US and its citizens would prefer to believe in lies and mistruths than to come to the realization that their government took them down the wrong road. I would say that the British are being much more honest with themselves than their American counterparts, and that deserves a little more respect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gollum
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Won't get any complaints here.
As I understand it, conditions are better in Britain than they have been in a long time. Brits hate Blair for going to war, but they realize he's doing a good job with the economy, from what I've read.
He also looks damn good as a world leader. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
| I understand they have almost abolished the conservative party now, |
I would like to hear about the piece of law which effected the near abolition of the conservative party. They have almost a third of the seats in the house of commons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| I always liked Tony, except for this Iraq thing. I suspect a lot of Brits feel this way as well. |
Let me guess. You liked Hitler too except for that Jewish thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| supernick wrote: |
You should also take note that maybe some of us are kinder on Blair than Bush simply because of respect. |
Oh, I think it's a lot simpler than that. It's because you're hypocrites. But thanks for proving my point anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
