egafd.com

"Can you tell me where I mentioned Blair ?"
You didn't. Nor did I say you that you did.

However you did assume wrongly that I was in favour of the wars in the Middle East that Blair got us into.

Your apparent reticence to talk about your opinions and explain them at all, is clearly not matched with any reticence to insult, be sarcastic and criticise someone like myself for views I have never held.

As an example, this is your opening response to my posts about why I think the Tories are the party of the rich and privilege.

"You suspect blah blah blah blah.This coming from a man who reckons everybody is innocent until proven otherwise. I'm afraid your suspicions don't count for much."

I will leave other forumites to decide what this shows about you as a person.

D

There you go with the "assuming" again. In no way would I think that any sane person would condone the wars that Blair got us into. However, I still believe that you support the party he was in charge of at the time so by default, you support the man himself. He was in charge at election time so by voting for the party, you voted for the man in charge.
Going back to the Falklands war, which I think was justified as it was protecting British subjects and interests I'd like to hear your views on the sinking of the Belgrano. Completely off at a tangent I know but since the Falklands issue is starting to rear it's head again your comments would be appreciated.

I don't commute daily but if I did I would want to travel in 1st class to get away from the smelly noisy fucking oiks who fill the ordinary carriages.
I would pay the difference myself.
Wintertons problem is though he is correct in that 1st class offers him better conditions to work in he has not explained it very well.
I think all government travel should be at the basic fare, and let those who want an upgrade pay for it. After all, it's not as if the thieving robbing two faced lying duplicitous incompetent yellow backed bastards can't afford it, is it?

winterton what a total knobcheese....bent,crooked,snob, typical tory boy really......

Dick
"However, I still believe that you support the party he was in charge of at the time so by default, you support the man himself. He was in charge at election time so by voting for the party, you voted for the man in charge. "

I voted for the Labour party in summer 2001. I can't recall invading Iraq being in the Labour party election prospectus. I demonstrated against the Iraq invasion, not that it did any good! And haven't voted for the Labour party since the Iraq war. Having said that only the Liberal Democrats of the mainstream parties came out of the Iraq war with any credit.


"Going back to the Falklands war, which I think was justified as it was protecting British subjects and interests I'd like to hear your views on the sinking of the Belgrano. Completely off at a tangent I know but since the Falklands issue is starting to rear it's head again your comments would be appreciated."

I think it was justified in the sense that the Falkland islanders were British subjects and more importantly wanted to remain so. However, it is a bit of a hangover from the British Empire - a tiny island on the other side of the world. I think that the sinking of the Belgrano was an unnecessary use of force - the ship was outside the exclusion zone and apparently sailing away from the Falklands.

The bombing also ensured a halt to peace talks being brokered by the UN and the Peruvian Government at the time.

Cheers
D

Fair enough pal. I agree with some of what you said but since we are about to start drilling for oil in the area maybe the true reason for the war is becoming clearer.
I think it was right to sink the Belgrano even though it was apparently steaming away from the area. One quick 180 degree turn and it's steaming back into the action and still a threat. I think the sinking had a huge effect on the Argies morale and hastened the end of the war.

" ..thieving robbing two faced lying duplicitous incompetent yellow backed bastards .."

You can add 'inarticulate' to that Rodders since he failed to explain his reprehensible views in such a way that they might be (mis)understood as 'valid' or 'legitimate'.

My apologies, inarticulate is added.