So today it is disclosed that the war monger and arse licker of the USA, has decided to give the proceeds from his memoirs to a army charity for injured troops.
I would tell him to poke his money and stick it up his arse....it is nothing more than blood money, from a man of no morals and who is a blatant liar.
The two faced cheek of the man is breathtaking.
One day the truth of this nasty little toad will come out into the public domain, but by then it will be too late as either myself or him will be dead.
The difference between him and a black sack? You can see right through Blair.
As it states in another article...
"But no proportion of his massive and ill-gotten fortune can buy him innocence or forgiveness.
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in the pointless death of hundreds of British soldiers and hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians.
"No amount of money will wash their blood from his hands."
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Tony Blair's blood money
Sex God
Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't? 
I'm just thinking that this could so easily have been a thread from someone saying "It's scandalous Tony Blair has made £4.6 million for the advance of his memoirs etc etc"
At least this way the British Legion are benefitting.
I'm just thinking that this could so easily have been a thread from someone saying "It's scandalous Tony Blair has made £4.6 million for the advance of his memoirs etc etc"
At least this way the British Legion are benefitting.
Sex God
But the thing is Nola, certain parties un-named were hoodwinked into voting for him so a special place in hell is reserved for him 
or is it :twisted:
or is it :twisted: Quote by noladreams
At least this way the British Legion are benefitting.
That's as simple as it gets for me.
I don't care whether the lying prick is giving the money to ease his conscience, whether he is being genuine.
The RBL are going to benefit, good can be done with such a substantial amount of money, principles don't pay the bills, and as they are looking to find £12m, this is a huge chunk of that.
As far as they are concerned, they should take the money and run, IMO.
Sex God
Now whilst I am fully aware that there is a little more to it than the above link may suggest,it would appear to me that perhaps Tony Blair doesn't bear sole responsibility for the actions in Iraq and afghanistan.....but then again I never voted for the tory mole,so I can be a little more objective.
I didn't vote Labour under Blair either.
I do recall that at the time, I was considered something of a wishy washy namby pamby liberal lefty pacifist for opposing the decision that was made. I recall the popular media was all for it too. I would post the traditional daily mail/soarawaysun links but their archives don't seem to go back to 2003.
I do recall that at the time, I was considered something of a wishy washy namby pamby liberal lefty pacifist for opposing the decision that was made. I recall the popular media was all for it too. I would post the traditional daily mail/soarawaysun links but their archives don't seem to go back to 2003.
Did I not read that he is only donating the profits to the RBL.
Call me a cynic, but profits are somewhat different to proceeds....
The grinning lying cheating toe rag is off on another one by all accounts. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him (if he were reachable that is!).
Guilty conscience? too fucking right but only to a certain extent :grin:
Call me a cynic, but profits are somewhat different to proceeds....
The grinning lying cheating toe rag is off on another one by all accounts. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him (if he were reachable that is!).
Guilty conscience? too fucking right but only to a certain extent :grin:
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Did I not read that he is only donating the profits to the RBL.
Call me a cynic, but profits are somewhat different to proceeds....
The grinning lying cheating toe rag is off on another one by all accounts. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him (if he were reachable that is!).
Guilty conscience? too fucking right but only to a certain extent :grin:
He has no conscience....much like all the others of all parties who voted to send men to kill and be killed....but as Ben so rightly says...everyone seemed to think it was a good idea at the time...some of those who oppose all military action may well feel vindicated..I couldn't possibly speak for all of us
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Did I not read that he is only donating the profits to the RBL.
Call me a cynic, but profits are somewhat different to proceeds....
The grinning lying cheating toe rag is off on another one by all accounts. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him (if he were reachable that is!).
Guilty conscience? too fucking right but only to a certain extent :grin:
He has no conscience....much like all the others of all parties who voted to send men to kill and be killed....but as Ben so rightly says...everyone seemed to think it was a good idea at the time...some of those who oppose all military action may well feel vindicated..I couldn't possibly speak for all of us
I seem to recall that there was a hell of a lot of opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Many of those that were in favour were so because of the lies regarding WMD told by Blair.
Sex God
Quote by Max777
Did I not read that he is only donating the profits to the RBL.
Call me a cynic, but profits are somewhat different to proceeds....
The grinning lying cheating toe rag is off on another one by all accounts. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him (if he were reachable that is!).
Guilty conscience? too fucking right but only to a certain extent :grin:
He has no conscience....much like all the others of all parties who voted to send men to kill and be killed....but as Ben so rightly says...everyone seemed to think it was a good idea at the time...some of those who oppose all military action may well feel vindicated..I couldn't possibly speak for all of us
I seem to recall that there was a hell of a lot of opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Many of those that were in favour were so because of the lies regarding WMD told by Blair.
Strike everyone and replace it with many....it changes little...many were deeply suspicious of the WMD crap but still in favour of the war.....i.e anyone with half an ounce of common sense could see the dossier etc. were bollocks
Sex God
Quote by Max777
Did I not read that he is only donating the profits to the RBL.
Call me a cynic, but profits are somewhat different to proceeds....
The grinning lying cheating toe rag is off on another one by all accounts. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him (if he were reachable that is!).
Guilty conscience? too fucking right but only to a certain extent :grin:
He has no conscience....much like all the others of all parties who voted to send men to kill and be killed....but as Ben so rightly says...everyone seemed to think it was a good idea at the time...some of those who oppose all military action may well feel vindicated..I couldn't possibly speak for all of us
I seem to recall that there was a hell of a lot of opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Many of those that were in favour were so because of the lies regarding WMD told by Blair.
i feel no amount of donations will prevent maybe this returning and haunting him
Sex God
Go on then tell me which is he...incompetent oaf or evil machiavellian plotter...sorry but you can't have it both ways....loathe though I am to be in the position of defending our tone,it does seem to me that there's a lot of blame being heaped on him for things that in reality were probably not his decisions or where his hand had been forced...he probably did no better or worse than any other politician put in the position he was.
P.S. I hope and think I've made it clear elsewhere that I am and never have been a fan of Mr Blair....but blaming him for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan does seem somewhat over the top
P.S. I hope and think I've made it clear elsewhere that I am and never have been a fan of Mr Blair....but blaming him for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan does seem somewhat over the top
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
.but blaming him for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan does seem somewhat over the top
Over the top?
I do not know what news you read but and here is the but....are you ready?
HE was our PM, that is Prime minister to you.....he was the one who ultimately decided to go to war. He could have ignored his cabinet and gone either way as it is him and him alone that makes the final decision.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
.but blaming him for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan does seem somewhat over the top
Over the top?
I do not know what news you read but and here is the but....are you ready?
HE was our PM, that is Prime minister to you.....he was the one who ultimately decided to go to war. He could have ignored his cabinet and gone either way as it is him and him alone that makes the final decision.
I would point you to the vote in parliament and the fact we have a cabinet and not a presidential system of government....and if you really want to go down the road of ultimate sanction I think you'll find the buck stops at Buck house.....but don't let the truth get in the way
Name me one instance in recent history where Buck House has gone against his/her Government?
Blair had a huge majority in Parliament and like in many other cases his MP's would have been forced to vote for the Government.
So yes he did have the final say.
I may be wrong but I think Labour would have won even if all other MP's would have voted against the Government.
He could have railroaded his way into war but did not need to as he had the support of the vast majority of MP's.
Blair had a huge majority in Parliament and like in many other cases his MP's would have been forced to vote for the Government.
So yes he did have the final say.
I may be wrong but I think Labour would have won even if all other MP's would have voted against the Government.
He could have railroaded his way into war but did not need to as he had the support of the vast majority of MP's.
Sex God
Quote by kentswingers777
Name me one instance in recent history where Buck House has gone against his/her Government?
Irrelevant we are still a monarchy with all that entails
Blair had a huge majority in Parliament and like in many other cases his MP's would have been forced to vote for the Government.
So yes he did have the final say.
I may be wrong but I think Labour would have won even if all other MP's would have voted against the Government.
I think you may indeed be wrong...most voices of dissent came from within the Labour party and the lib-dems ....the Tories where fairly solidly behind invasion
He could have railroaded his way into war but did not need to as he had the support of the vast majority of MP's.
I doubt anyone could force a war without the support of parliament but yes he did have the support of the bulk of M.P.s...which I think you'll find was my point in the first place ffs!
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Irrelevant we are still a monarchy with all that entails
Why irrelevant now?
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
if you really want to go down the road of ultimate sanction I think you'll find the buck stops at Buck house
As I said already, Buck house not in recent history has voted against his/her Government, so is relevant.
lets remember that the Tory party whole hearteredly endorsed the actions as well. I actually still think the invasion or afganistan was correct. It seems almost every terrorist was being trained there....all money for terror attacks were coming from there....and being sactioned from there. Mr Bin Laden could not be allowed to continue after the twin towers attack. That was a spectacular terror attack, that basically closed USA down and shook it to the core. Had they not checked this terror threat at that point, they would of simply got more and more spectacular and more and more regular.
In Iraq I think we have a differant case. This was more about revenge on Mr Bush's part on Saddam Hussain. Had they found weapons of mass destruction, I would have said it was correct. As they didn't I can only say it was a mistake.
Tony Blair...I do believe did what he thought was right. he is giving the money he is recieving as an adavance for his book to the Britsh legion, as a private individual. Surely it his his choice what he does with his money.
No one moaning it seems that Maggie Thatcher DIDN'T give any of her proceeds from her books recounting her time in the Falklands confilt, to any charity !!!
In Iraq I think we have a differant case. This was more about revenge on Mr Bush's part on Saddam Hussain. Had they found weapons of mass destruction, I would have said it was correct. As they didn't I can only say it was a mistake.
Tony Blair...I do believe did what he thought was right. he is giving the money he is recieving as an adavance for his book to the Britsh legion, as a private individual. Surely it his his choice what he does with his money.
No one moaning it seems that Maggie Thatcher DIDN'T give any of her proceeds from her books recounting her time in the Falklands confilt, to any charity !!!
Back to context.
The Queen is a constitutional Monarch unlike Spain and some other modern monarchies around the world. This means that her power to stop "her" Government from doing anything just does not exist.
Blair operated his cabinet in presidential style for sure. Evidence taken at the Iraq War Inquiry from some senior cabinet ministers show that to be the case. If you were known not to support Tony's take on things, you were "excluded" from the inner circle who were kept in the loop. The cabinet merely rubber stamped Tony's actions.
The Conservatives, like so many others (except perhaps the LibDems who consistently did not support the action) were duped by Blair in Parliament.
The Queen is a constitutional Monarch unlike Spain and some other modern monarchies around the world. This means that her power to stop "her" Government from doing anything just does not exist.
Blair operated his cabinet in presidential style for sure. Evidence taken at the Iraq War Inquiry from some senior cabinet ministers show that to be the case. If you were known not to support Tony's take on things, you were "excluded" from the inner circle who were kept in the loop. The cabinet merely rubber stamped Tony's actions.
The Conservatives, like so many others (except perhaps the LibDems who consistently did not support the action) were duped by Blair in Parliament.
Quote by GnV
Back to context.
The Queen is a constitutional Monarch unlike Spain and some other modern monarchies around the world. This means that her power to stop "her" Government from doing anything just does not exist.
Blair operated his cabinet in presidential style for sure. Evidence taken at the Iraq War Inquiry from some senior cabinet ministers show that to be the case. If you were known not to support Tony's take on things, you were "excluded" from the inner circle who were kept in the loop. The cabinet merely rubber stamped Tony's actions.
The Conservatives, like so many others (except perhaps the LibDems who consistently did not support the action) were duped by Blair in Parliament.
:thumbup: Good to see someone talking sense!!
Quote by Ben_welshminx
I am amused.
700 MPs cry "but miss a big boy did it and ran away". Almost as unbelievable as sentient human beings believing them when they say it.
These would be the same MPs everybody loved so much when they had been on the aye diddle diddle I take it.
Which Parliament was that Ben?
Quote by GnV
I am amused.
700 MPs cry "but miss a big boy did it and ran away". Almost as unbelievable as sentient human beings believing them when they say it.
These would be the same MPs everybody loved so much when they had been on the aye diddle diddle I take it.
Which Parliament was that Ben?
I would think ours, but it now has about 650 MPs not 700. Whatever the number, I find it hard to believe they were all duped.
The Tories were going to back the war as it would have been political suicide if they didn't. America called and Britain was going, they had to justify it first.
Dave_Notts
Quote by Dave__Notts
I am amused.
700 MPs cry "but miss a big boy did it and ran away". Almost as unbelievable as sentient human beings believing them when they say it.
These would be the same MPs everybody loved so much when they had been on the aye diddle diddle I take it.
Which Parliament was that Ben?
I would think ours, but it now has about 650 MPs not 700. Whatever the number, I find it hard to believe they were all duped.
The Tories were going to back the war as it would have been political suicide if they didn't. America called and Britain was going, they had to justify it first.
Dave_Notts
Well I know your easily duped then Davey.
The evidence that Blair put before the House seemed overwhelming, hence why all the flak now about Blair telling porkies.
I think a huge ammount of people supported the war based on the evidence put on the table, yes we now know that was bollocks but we did not think so at the time, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Yes there are 650 MP's and not the figure someone spouted of 700, unless we have grown a few more constituences overnight somewhere.
Quote by kentswingers777
Well I know your easily duped then Davey.
The evidence that Blair put before the House seemed overwhelming, hence why all the flak now about Blair telling porkies.
The opposition only has the evidence that was put before it and nothing else? And you think I am easily duped :lol:
I think a huge ammount of people supported the war based on the evidence put on the table, yes we now know that was bollocks but we did not think so at the time, and hindsight is a wonderful thing.
At the time there were people saying the evidence was flawed. There were people who were protesting against any violent act.
Yes there are 650 MP's and not the figure someone spouted of 700, unless we have grown a few more constituences overnight somewhere.
This is the intersting bit. The Commons is not Parliament. So we may have 650 people in the Commons but Parliament is a lot more than 700.
Parliament is made up of the Commons, Lords and Monarchy.
Dave_Notts
we do seem very hung up here on Iraq conflict.
More British soldiers over in Afghanistan. More British casulties over in Afghanistan. Kenty are you standing by your statement that made on orginal post, that this conflict was pointless !! Would you have allowed Mr Bin Laden to continue to train and finance terrorists, so we could have more of the 9/11 attacks !! After the twin towers attack, something had to be done. If we had allowed the situtaion to continue then, we would be have lost a lot more lives by now, and all be living in a shadow of terrorist fear.
For me the afghan confilt was an unfortunate neccessity.
The Iraq conflict was and still is highly questionable.
More British soldiers over in Afghanistan. More British casulties over in Afghanistan. Kenty are you standing by your statement that made on orginal post, that this conflict was pointless !! Would you have allowed Mr Bin Laden to continue to train and finance terrorists, so we could have more of the 9/11 attacks !! After the twin towers attack, something had to be done. If we had allowed the situtaion to continue then, we would be have lost a lot more lives by now, and all be living in a shadow of terrorist fear.
For me the afghan confilt was an unfortunate neccessity.
The Iraq conflict was and still is highly questionable.
