Tony Blair hospitalised with heart irregularity

[TheStinger]

Chegitz, to whom has Tony Blair surrenderd and what has he surrendered.

Maybe he just belives that there are better ways of delivering fairness than redistribution of wealth and the state control of property. Of cousre betrayl is one of the lefts favourite insults.

(I can't believe I'm sticking up for him like this)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Chegitz, to whom has Tony Blair surrenderd and what has he surrendered.

#1, he took control of Labour away from the very unions who founded it.

[TheStinger]

The unions founded it over 100 years ago, why should they have a greater say over policy than ordinary members.

He brought democracy to the party, of course it is far better to be controlled by a few leaders of a handful of unions

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by NeOmega

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.

Uh huh. So if Germany hadn't invaded Poland in 1939, and had kept the holocaust within it's own borders, should we have sat on the sidelines wringing our hands in dismay?

If you ever look for a new handle, "Pontius Pilate" would be my tip.

[Caligastia]

He always seems so healthy and robust. I'm suprised to hear this.

Get well soon Tony.

[axi]

Uh huh. So if Germany hadn't invaded Poland in 1939, and had kept the holocaust within it's own borders, should we have sat on the sidelines wringing our hands in dismay?

In 1939, nobody was thinking of the Jews. The Holocaust was something that very few people, even among the German Jews themselved, believed that could ever happen. The full extent of the Holocaust was discovered when the first death camps were liberated.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Uh huh. So if Germany hadn't invaded Poland in 1939, and had kept the holocaust within it's own borders, should we have sat on the sidelines wringing our hands in dismay?

If you ever look for a new handle, "Pontius Pilate" would be my tip.

Hitler.... Blah blah blah Hitler.... Bla blah bla blah blah blah Hitler..... .ble ble blah....Nazi..... Blah ble blah blah .....Nazi..... bleh blah blah.....Nazi....., blah blah blah Halocaust ble ble blah blah Halocaust blah bla Halocaust.

Fill the blahs with Tony Blair, George Bush, Rumsfeld and see I can play that asinine game too.

Surely you can do better than that.

Pontius Pilate... I like that. He had the sense to stay out of a relgious debate.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Answer the question, tosser.

[Az]

Laz, that's a no-brainer. Most libertarians think that US getting involved in WWII, even when the Nazis did invade other countries, was wrong and criminal. Obviously, if it was in happening in the borders of sovereign Germany, this is none of the world community's bussiness.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Answer the question, tosser.

OK, history lesson. Germany did not just sit on it's hands. It actually did go out for world domination. So I would have been all for dealing with Nazi Germany. Deal with reality, not hypotheticals.

Laz, that's a no-brainer. Most libertarians think that US getting involved in WWII, even when the Nazis did invade other countries, was wrong and criminal. Obviously, if it was in happening in the borders of sovereign Germany, this is none of the world community's bussiness.

No, "most" Libertarians do not think this way. A select few. I'll have you know a good percentage of libertarians wrote letters to the editor in our party newsletter urging support for the gulf war.

Also, as axi said, and I hate wasting my time pointing this out to ignorant "nazi tossers", but the Jewish extermination amps were largely unknown until the end of the war.

[NeOmega]

My turn to say Nazi now, since you didn't get my point.

So if America were to next invade Syria or Iran, would it not be the duty of the world to declare war on us, since it would be just like Britain stepping aside as Hitler invaded Poland after already aggressively taking Czechoslovakia ?

[Frozzy]

If they invaded with no reason, there would be just reason for restrictions.

However, saying that, I do not think the US will invade Syria or Iran without good reason, and will wait for some semblance of an international disgrace to come from Syria/Iran.

Incredibly enough, Bush and co are not like Hitler. They do not want to murder 6,000,000 arabs. They have elections to think about.

You can't put 1939 perspectives in 2003 issues. Moron.

[Frozzy]

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

You want to condemn Britain to five years of IDS? Have you no sympathy?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Azazel
Laz, that's a no-brainer. Most libertarians think that US getting involved in WWII, even when the Nazis did invade other countries, was wrong and criminal. Obviously, if it was in happening in the borders of sovereign Germany, this is none of the world community's bussiness.

Do you have anything to back up your assertion that most Libertarians think this way? I thought not.

[Sikander]

And those cheering him to die are out of line IMO. I don't particularly like the man, but he certainly doesn't deserve to die for any of his actions that I've heard of. If you disagree with him, much better that you hope that Britain "wakes up" and tossed him out at election time. Having him die just increases sympathy for him, and to some extent his policies.