|
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 |
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
 Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| I don't suppose that Immigration Canada's website will have a surge of bandwidth usage like they did back in November? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 7:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oh, I think it's a lot simpler than that. It's because you're hypocrites. But thanks for proving my point anyway. |
Well, you might not be able to understand the difference between what has traspired in the UK as to what happened in the U.S., but that's because you are a moron. And again you have proven it once again.
If the situation was the same, then you can go ahead and say that I and others are hypocrites but that situations are vastly different as I have pointed out on my previous post.
For starters, I have hardly ever heard Blair telling the British public over and over how he is the right man for the job of protecting the British people from a created enemy, but that is what we heard from Bush over and over, and then the Americans ate it up, just like you did. Fear was not used in the election campaign, where as Bush played that card over and over.
Another differnce is that the British people (the majority) believe the war in Iraq is wrong, but Americans have a much different view as you have said, Americans aren't gonna lay on their backs to watch planes fly into buildings, which is why you justified the invasion of Iraq.
The UK didn't open a prisoner camp to circumvent international. It was Blair that tried to get a second resolution on Iraq but Bush didn't. How could Blair back down once the wheels were set in motion? What message would that have sent to Saddam and others? It was a tough call and I respect Blair for it. I'm sure that at the time he thought that Saddam would have given up, and I'm sure Saddam was thinking that they would never invade.
Blair is a much better man that your dear Bush, and that is why the world is much more accepting of him.
Will there be a day when Blair says that he has been vindicated on his position on Iraq because he won another term? I doubt it, but Bush saw to it to say that he was vindicated. You see,( maybe you don't) that Bush thinks he was elected for his Iraq policy but Blair doesn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Supernick wrote:
| Quote: |
| Another differnce is that the British people (the majority) believe the war in Iraq is wrong, but Americans have a much different view |
According to a May 2005 Gallup poll:
| Quote: |
| Americans' responses to three key measures about the war in Iraq continue a downward trend after showing temporary improvement following the Iraq elections in late January. Fifty-seven percent of Americans now say it was not worth going to war in Iraq. |
Supernick also wrote:
| Quote: |
| For starters, I have hardly ever heard Blair telling the British public over and over how he is the right man for the job of protecting the British people from a created enemy |
Since nothing comparable to 9-11 took place in the UK, Blair's refusal to exploit such an issue doesn't really prove much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Can't find the original Gallup link. Here's a CNN article on the same poll.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/iraq.poll/
| Quote: |
Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults.
That was a drop in support from February, when 48 percent said it was worth going to war and half said it was not.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
As has already been pointed out, comparing Blair with Bush is like comparing apples and oranges. Another poster has already taken the trouble to point out reasons, so I wont go into details. However, the fact that he hasn't had a monkey's brain transplanted into his skull must be one of the key differences.
For the record, I remain disgusted with Blair for taking us to war, and even more so, for his dishonesty in trying to muster public support for it. I really hope he gets his comeuppence. However, I suspect most people are not voting for Blair [in the US you vote directly for your president - is that right? Our leader is the one whose party gets the most votes.], they are voting for the Labour Party. The alternative is terrifying. The Tories are the party of the rich and privileged, and if you are not in the top 10% income bracket, and you value the NHS, a reasonable quality of life, etc, you do not want those Tories back in power. Ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
For the record, I remain disgusted with Blair for taking us to war, and even more so, for his dishonesty in trying to muster public support for it. I really hope he gets his comeuppence. However, I suspect, most people are not voting for Blair [in the US you vote directly for your president - is that right? Our leader is the one whose party gets the most votes.], they are voting for the Labour Party. The alternative is terrifying. The Tories are the party of the rich and privileged, and if you are not in the top 10% income bracket, and you value the NHS, a reasonable quality of life, etc, you do not want those Tories back in power. Ever.
|
We are left wo wonder why, with all this supposed anti-war sentiment in the UK, Blair wasn't ousted by some sort of Labour Party revolt. Wouldn't most of the anti-war politicos be concentrated in that party? And I seem to recall Thatcher being ousted by the Tories over Europe. Was her hold on her party so much weaker than Blair's?
As far as I can tell, the basic British attitude is this: This war is bad, innocent people are dying, but what the hell. Tony's doing a great job otherwise, and as long as we can proudly say that our PM is smarter than Bush, why rock the boat over a few dead kids in a small country far away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
supernick
Joined: 24 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults.
That was a drop in support from February, when 48 percent said it was worth going to war and half said it was not. |
This is a few months ago and after the election. British support for the war quickly faded at the start of the war.
Yes, the UK wasn't bombed, but the U.S. wasn't bombed by Iraq. Bush always equated the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq, and though Blair had done the same thing, i never heard him say it while he was campaigning.
Blair might still be ousted by his own party. The reason why the party is much smaller is probably due to Blair's stand on Iraq. There's still some more news about Blair's legal advice for the war, something that is still far from over.
For the past year, it appears that Blair has kept his distance bfrom Bush.
It's also interesting that John Howard in Australia won. Did he win because Australians supported the war? No. The like him because they have become wealthier over the pas few years, and I think we could say the same about the UK. If the U.S. economy was showing signs of faltering there may have been a much different result.
Big-Bird wrote:
| Quote: |
| As has already been pointed out, comparing Blair with Bush is like comparing apples and oranges. Another poster has already taken the trouble to point out reasons, so I wont go into details. However, the fact that he hasn't had a monkey's brain transplanted into his skull must be one of the key differences |
I think you were referring to my post. As long as you can see that there is a difference, I can rest knowing that at least you can see it. I guess some just don't see it.
However, Blair is a lapdog. He mislead on Iraq. His wings are now surely clipped. Is he better than Bush? I least he can speak proper.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
matthewwoodford
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Location: Location, location, location.
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
We are left wo wonder why, with all this supposed anti-war sentiment in the UK, Blair wasn't ousted by some sort of Labour Party revolt. Wouldn't most of the anti-war politicos be concentrated in that party? And I seem to recall Thatcher being ousted by the Tories over Europe. Was her hold on her party so much weaker than Blair's?
As far as I can tell, the basic British attitude is this: This war is bad, innocent people are dying, but what the hell. Tony's doing a great job otherwise, and as long as we can proudly say that our PM is smarter than Bush, why rock the boat over a few dead kids in a small country far away. |
As many people have said, Blair was elected because the only alternative is even worse.
I agree that there should have been a Labour revolt over this. Despite the fact that senior figures resigned their positions over Iraq, none of them stepped forward to lead a revolt. I think the reason for this is that Labour was deeply traumatized by the experience of 12 years of Thatcher when it seemed like they could never get elected, and when the most cutting charge leveled against them was their lack of unity. They've responded by moving rightwards and suppressing internal dissent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| As has already been pointed out, comparing Blair with Bush is like comparing apples and oranges. Another poster has already taken the trouble to point out reasons, so I wont go into details. However, the fact that he hasn't had a monkey's brain transplanted into his skull must be one of the key differences. |
You're right. Blair looks more like he's got a chipmunk's brain transplanted into a lapdog's body.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| For the record, I remain disgusted with Blair for taking us to war, and even more so, for his dishonesty in trying to muster public support for it. I really hope he gets his comeuppence. However, I suspect most people are not voting for Blair [in the US you vote directly for your president - is that right? Our leader is the one whose party gets the most votes.], they are voting for the Labour Party. The alternative is terrifying. The Tories are the party of the rich and privileged, and if you are not in the top 10% income bracket, and you value the NHS, a reasonable quality of life, etc, you do not want those Tories back in power. Ever. |
Now, why is it OK to claim that the Brits didn't have a viable alternative but the Americans did? We didn't. Our alternative in Kerry and the Democrats were equally as terrifying. You want to see real fear? Just wait until '08 when Hilly puts her hat into the ring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cherie Blair has definitely gone to pot. I didn't realise it took only a couple of years to develop a double chin.
Does tony have interns at downing street? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Man known as The Man
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Location: 3 cheers for Ted Haggard oh yeah!
|
| Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rapier, why do Brits have a national phobia when it comes to flossing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stat
Joined: 22 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
We are left wo wonder why, with all this supposed anti-war sentiment in the UK, Blair wasn't ousted by some sort of Labour Party revolt. Wouldn't most of the anti-war politicos be concentrated in that party? And I seem to recall Thatcher being ousted by the Tories over Europe. Was her hold on her party so much weaker than Blair's?
|
The electorate couldn't have ousted Labour, or the Tories would've got in. Didn't stop some people from having a go though, and the Lib Dems did so well that it's generally considered that the UK's now a 3 party state. The results show that the population is fed up with the Tories, and increasingly fed up with New Labour.
Now the election's over, the Labour Party are trying to oust Tony:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4526435.stm
"Tony Blair has been urged to quit as prime minister early into his third term, days after Labour's election win. "
[...]
"Mr Cook, who resigned from the Cabinet in protest at the Iraq war, told BBC1's Politics Show that Labour had won this election despite rather than because of Mr Blair."
[...]
"Frank Dobson, who served as health secretary in Mr Blair's first Cabinet, told GMTV's Sunday programme the prime minister had been an "enormous liability" in this poll."
[...]
"John Austin, MP for Erith and Thamesmead, told The Sunday Times: "You can't beat about the bush. Blair was a negative factor on the doorstep, time and time and time again.""
(etc etc) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 3:35 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
In an earlier thread, I advocated tossing blair simply on the principle of his contradicting support of both Clinton and Bush.
That said, the man did stand up and address issues, argue about them, and take the flak when people disagreed with him.
He didn't get angry, storm off, and hold as few press conferences possible.
Via the British system of government, he was up before parliament defending his actions regularly.
Here is a degree of transparency lacking in American government.
Note also that the number of seats in the British parliament far more accurately reflects the population they represent.
Seats in the US house of representatives have been frozen since 1911 (due to fears of "immigrant influence"). In the same time, our population has increased exponentially.
What does that mean, Wannago?
More centralization of power.
I'd go on to say that I like the parliamentary version of elections better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 3:47 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
In an earlier thread, I advocated tossing blair simply on the principle of his contradicting support of both Clinton and Bush.
That said, the man did stand up and address issues, argue about them, and take the flak when people disagreed with him.
He didn't get angry, storm off, and hold as few press conferences possible.
Via the British system of government, he was up before parliament defending his actions regularly.
Here is a degree of transparency lacking in American government.
Note also that the number of seats in the British parliament far more accurately reflects the population they represent.
Seats in the US house of representatives have been frozen since 1911 (due to fears of "immigrant influence"). In the same time, our population has increased exponentially.
What does that mean, Wannago?
More centralization of power.
I'd go on to say that I like the parliamentary version of elections better. |
I think I'd go along with most of that.
The tri-partite structure does prodcue some odd quirks though. Most British governments are elected on less than 50% of the popular vote but under the "first past the post" system, that can result on more than 50% of the seats in the House of Commons. In this last election, on a turnout of 61.2% (up 2% btw) Labour won 356 of the 645 seats contested - 55% - with a popular vote of 36.4%.
That means of course that Blair was elected by 22% of the elctorate and that hence 78% have a government which they did not choose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 4:07 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Good point.
While it is less than 50%, there is also the coalition-building that goes on; not so obvious in Britain, but a good example is Berlusconi in Italy. By making the reps responsible for electing their leader, it empowers third parties. Something which, by American design, is weak. |
|
| 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
