| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Letter to Blair | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 26 2004, 02:36 PM (356 Views) | |
| somerled | Apr 27 2004, 08:10 AM Post #16 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
This a link to the entire letter Ambassadors' letter to Blair These are eminent, experienced and knowledgeable people who have felt compelled to express their concerns. For people like these who (Diplomats slam Blair on Mid-East) feel compelled to speak out in such a public way indicates that something is very seriously out of order and that middle east policy has taken a dangerous direction. They are not saying Israel/Palestine should be abandoned, they are saying that Israeli actions, and annexations are internationally illegal and counterproductive to efforts to resolve that situation and will only make the situation worse. The change in Whitehouse policy is also of great concern because it is one-sided (the tail wagging the dog). They have also serios expressed concerns about the ongoing war in Iraq (these are cautious people - if they say illegal - then you can bet they have sort out the best internation legal opinion available). Nor are they saying Iraq should now be abandoned (now the country is in chaos and virtually ungovernable mostly because of the invasion and occupation and a total lack of understanding of the culture of this complex country on the part of the Whitehouse and their advisers). The mess is mostly the USA's and UK's doing and now as occupying powers they have the obligation to reestablish civil government and infrastruction. They are right. (FLAME AWAY!) |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Apr 27 2004, 08:16 AM Post #17 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Observation And lets not forget the fine job this same British Diplomatic Corp has done in the Middle East over the last century ... End of Personal Observation |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Intrepid2002 | Apr 27 2004, 10:32 AM Post #18 |
|
UNGH!
|
Ah the hubhub of British politics. Gotta give em credit though, it SEEMS to me that even their protests are "prim and proper" and done politely over tea. Just curious but how DO the British duke it out over there? Do you also have twisted disinformation? Do you also fall prey to "intimidation" if you speak up against the government? Could you suggest some websites to read regarding British politics and commentary besides the Guardian? Left, right, doesn't matter to me. Thanks |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 27 2004, 10:51 AM Post #19 |
|
Admiral
|
One of the very best sites I know of is, seriously if you want to know pretty much anything about British politics go there. There are main stories on the front pages etc and if you click on say Westminster at the top you can look at things like Bills before Parliament: http://www.epolitix.com/EN/ Could someone explain to me what it means to "duke it out"? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 27 2004, 10:52 AM Post #20 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ I believe it means that the participants have taken the gloves off--meaning that no punches will be pulled.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Apr 27 2004, 10:55 AM Post #21 |
|
Admiral
|
In that case you need to look no further than the chamber of the House of Commons at midday on Wednesdays. Each week the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition "duke it out". Although having said that, even at their most roudy they still have to say "the honorable Gentleman opposite..." etc. At the last election the Deputy PM punched someone in the face so I guess that was a little more direct. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Apr 27 2004, 11:35 AM Post #22 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
The difference between diplomats and the military is that diplomats try to find solutions to problems without getting people killed. The military is necessary to maintain peace and order, but should only be used as a last resort. If finding peaceful solutions before resorting to violence is the easy way out, then so be it. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Intrepid2002 | Apr 27 2004, 12:24 PM Post #23 |
|
UNGH!
|
I wonder if that has any royal connotations to it... you know "duke".
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Apr 27 2004, 01:07 PM Post #24 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ Maybe. And it may have connotations to 'The Duke' as well (er, not Patty, but John Wayne, that is).
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2


2:11 PM Jul 11