Ho-hum. Blair's government invested heavily in the decaying fabric of the NHS, schools and other social needs - the very things that were massively underfunded by the preceding incompetent Tory gov ('trickle down' ma botty). He also forced the UN to grow some balls. You can argue that the Iraq war was a mistake, but there is a stronger argument that the aftermath was the real error - thank you, Rumsfeld. You can 'Bliar' as much as you want, but repeating that very tired old pun doesn't actually add any further credibility to your case; the war was declared 'legal' at the time, gloss or no. And before you cry 'foul', really do some reading about that psycho Saddam and where he was heading - almost certain Armageddon in that region regardless of our move. Anyways, where were we? Oh yes - Ryluer, the yanker...
He had to invest in the nhs, schools and housing to support his open door policy on immigration his new voters had to be provided for. Trouble is they had to borrow to pay for it.
The irony of the Iraq war and subsequent war on Terror is that they have created more Bin Ladens and terrorists than anything else in the world, which turns Hitchens into Hypocritchens in his claim that the Iraqi war and war on terror have somehow made us more safe. So bliar and the religion hater hypocrititchens were pretty much on the same level there. (Ie... completely wrong) People like bliar and hitchens are/were prepared to fight for every drop of other peoples blood and its utterly contemptable.
Jeepers. Re-read. Re-read. Re-read. The writings of an imbecile. Are you really saying that the Labour party carried out that major & essential investment so that they could then open the doors for immigrants? Is that really what you are saying? Really? If so, you are on a different planet of idiocy. If that's not what you mean, then why are you saying it?
You are not permitted to use the word 'irony' as you have previously shown you don't know what it means. Anyways, I agree that Iraq has turned out really badly, and that will always be a cause for dismay. It didn't start out like this, tho', and had it been handled properly - and that does mean 'winning hearts and minds' - then I think there's a very good chance the Middle East could have been transformed. Syria wouldn't be an issue, because a democratic and properly-functioning government in Iraq (sadly it's barely neither) would have shown the Syrian people the best path, and this would also be making Iran move faster than they currently are. The populations in these countries are not nut cases (well, not most of them), not barbarians, not evil - they just go for whatever provides them the best chance of a decent life even if it's Isis, and especially since they don't trust the West to help them any more. That wasn't the case before - there was a genuine feeling of welcome towards who the Iraqis saw as their liberators to begin with. But that crumbled when the stoopid Americans (and the private 'security' guards) started treating all Iraqis the same - with suspicion. And indiscriminate bullets. Before collapsing the regimes and backing out. It didn't have to be that way. A tragically wasted opportunity.
I'm not saying that it was done to allow unlimited immigration. It was done as a consequence of unlimited immigration bringing overpopulation. As good as the nhs is its an ever growing monster of a money pit due to population increase. It's ok to say it needs more money pumping in but like they say about building roads to ease trafic the more you build the more they fill up. As for Iraq that was a total mistake, how can you win hearts and minds by bombing someone.it was done with no exit strategy in mind and just left the place even more unstable. At least when Sadam ran it you knew who the enemy was. Always remember an old chap who was stationed in the Middle East after the Second World War saying the locals would shake your hand in the day and try to kill you at night.
"It was done as a consequence of 'unlimited' immigration"? So, the Labour party allowed all these peeps in, so then had to build up the country's infrastructure to cope? Is that what you're saying? Really? If so, that's is chust truly weird thinking. If not, why did you say it?
Alas, I agree with you. No exit strategy. Coupled with the American 'thinking' that they can bludgeon and bully a people into submission as if they'll understand being handled by thugs is 'good for them'. When you start treating people the same way they were used to before - and in the same torture cells at Abu Ghraib, for heaven's sakes (you couldn't make it up) - then you have lost, lost, lost. Sadly, the Americans are a hugely arrogant race and reckon they can force others how to live their 'honourable' way... Yep, the Americans don't get irony either. Interesting what you said about that chap in the Middle East; exactly the same thing happening now in Afghanistan. Rory Stewart's memoirs have such stories - dealing with these people face-to-face during the day and believing he has their support, and then catching glimpses of their faces during a gun battle during the night. But for the vast population, if you show them a much better, more secure life is possible, you will win them over. But what a battle that is.
The real problem with the middle east is the Americans and unfortunately us don't really give a **** about the people, it the control of oil that really matters, proof in point is Robert Mugaby, if we were interested in people's wellfair we have been in there and sorted him out long ago, but alas, no oil over there.
Alas your thinking like a normal person and not a politician. I'm not a politician by the way, they are a different animal altogether and not (many) think like the people they represent only at election time. As for Mugabe some truth there but it's Africa and as a past colonial power it's strictly taboo to interfere
Well at least it looks like were gonna have another Tory government after the next election. Happy Days.
Forums
Facebook
Twitter
You Tube
Instagram
Shop