Tony Blair hospitalised with heart irregularity

[axi]

It's all the fault of the Greek PM, Kostas Simitis.

Simitis and Blair are both memebers of the European Socialist Party. We will be having elections in Greece in April and only a miracle could keep the right-wing opposition party from getting elected. Simitis met with Blair the day before he fell ill and asked him if he could do him a favor and help bring the Parthenon sculptures (the ones at the British Museum) back to Athens, before the 2004 Olympics and before the elections too, as this would give a boost to his party. Unfortunately for him, a camera caught this conversation and he was humiliated to the Greek public.

Well I bet Blair noticed this humiliation and this reminded him of the fact that he too must face an election in 2004, which, seeing as public discontent over Iraq, the scandals, privatized companies, etc is continuously piling up, he will probably lose. To make things worse, he can't go ask any of his buddies for help with a straight face. Chiefly because he has only one left, Dubya, and second, what's he going to ask for? London Bridge?

That's when he started feeling ill....

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Uh...a few points.

Blair probably won't face an election in 2004.

He'll only lose if he has credible opposition. At the moment, he hasn't.

[TheStinger]

Oh no the greek public think badly of the UK PM, he's gonna lose alot of sleep over that.

What scandals are there with privatised companies. Unless you mean the trains, but there incompetent rather than scandalous

[Evil Knevil]

The way he's organised the NHS is pretty murderous too.

Still, It was a bit foolish to wish him death. Just break his hip and leave him to fester like the commoners he ignores on World fellatio tours.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
I think you've either been driven insane by the inflexibility of your own logic, or never possessed a sense of proportion to start with. Whether you agreed with his policies or not, it takes a surreal leap to label him a "war criminal".

Particularly since his military actions have been confined to rather monstrous regimes with genuinely appalling human rights records. If your personal set of principles means that such regimes should be left to continue the slaughter with nary more than a docking of their allowance, then your personal set of principles are not ones I would touch with a very long and very ****ty stick.

I don't think killing innocent people is cool, or justified, unless their government is directly threatening you.

Every Iraqi killed was not justified by the U.N. Legally it's pretty easy, except that the U.S. and Britian are powerful enough to get away with it. And keep your bloody hands off of my principles, thanks.

[TheStinger]

Whether the war was legal or moral are infact 2 diffrenent issues.

The UK's declaration of war on Germany in WW2 was arguably illegal.

[Alexander's Horse]

why?

[TheStinger]

Well I think it was legal, but you could argue that there was no direct threat to the UK and threfore they had no business in declaring war against Germany. Now I don't hink its a very good argument but I think it is arguable legally.

[Pekka]

Tony is a trooper. He'll be fine, I'm sure.

[Harovan]

Britain was bound to a protection pledge to Poland. Thus, the declaration of war of Great Britain (and France, for that matter) against Germany was legal. Although they didn't do **** to actually help out Poland, and hence broke their promise.

Get well soon, Blair, and then get the hell out of your office!

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Well I think it was legal, but you could argue that there was no direct threat to the UK and threfore they had no business in declaring war against Germany. Now I don't hink its a very good argument but I think it is arguable legally.

I could be wrong, but I think pre war treaty between Poland, France and the UK meant war would be declared automatically if Poland was invaded from West or East.

As for Tony Blair - he's a slippery spinning sort of politician, but I must admit I prefer him to the alternatives.

So I hope he gets better quick. Anyway, think of all the publicity devoted to him that could have been devoted to war casualties in the Middle East...

[TheStinger]

You are right about the treaty of course but, it can be argued that the treaty itself is not a good enough legal reason for going to war, if( and this is of course a big If) you are not threatened yourself.

The point I am making is there is no definition of when declaring war is legal, other than in self defense which is a bit redundant anyway as you have already been attacked.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by TheStinger
As he dosen't want to resurect a class war he is seen as shallow.

One doesn't "resurrect class war." It is always being waged, sometimes openly, sometimes not, but it is always going on. Those for whom the Right work are constantly engaged in a process of trying to squeeze the other classes. When they talk about engaging in the politics of class war, they never mean themselves. They are engaging in what are known as psyops, getting the other side to surrender without fighting. The results of this surrender can be seen in our crumbling social infrastructure and decline in wages and benefits and input.

Tony Blair, aside from being a war criminal, is a quisling of labor. Worse than Benedict Arnold, who simply surendered, Blair surrendered and is administrating the leftovers. Maybe a comparison to Marshall Petain would be better?

NeoOmega, my coments weern't directed towards you, but towards my fellow leftists. We already know that Libertarians have no respect for human life and dignity.

[Cruddy]

Yes, but just because things are "illegal" doesn't stop them from happening, does it?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
why?

Because they signed a treaty outlawing war.