irrespective of anything that may be attributed to him in terms of success (and let's not forget that the NI Peace Process was marred by the issue of the so-called immunity letters) the invasion of Iraq was so massively wrongheaded and ineffectual in a meaningful sense that his time as PM is debased.
His scheming and profiteering since leaving office have shown him to be utterly unprincipled and manipulative. I feel a sense of shame for the UK that we actually elected a party of which he was the leader.
Were you for or against the Iraq invasion at the time? Not a troll question, genuinely curious. Most of the country were after all.
Blair has an almost evangelical Christian like view of his time in power - he is blinkered by self belief. Totally delusional for me.
His leadership was a disaster for our country, certainly when it comes to foreign policy.
Why? I think he was broadly a successful PM with one horrendous stain on his record as opposed to a PM who got everything wrong. Why do you think he was a disaster? If it's just the Iraq war then fair enough no need to elaborate, just wondering if it was more than that.
My judgement is coloured to a point by my natural tendency to be more right wing than left wing when it comes to politics.
I think Iraq was a monumental mistake that has haunted us ever since and will continue to do so.
It created more problems that it solved, killed thousands of innocent people, cost fortunes which could have been spent more wisely, left the region more unstable than before and helped the cause of the likes of Bin Laden and the groups that have followed enormously. They couldn't have asked for a better recruitment sergeant. What is troubling is Blair's unwillingness to accept that Iraq was a shambles and has cost us dearly. He really is like one of those religious zealots that believe their own narrative even when the truth and reality is staring them in the face.
This is true.
Although I don't agree with your religious analogy. To the point of finding it borderline offensive. But I do get where you're coming from with it. To some people the religious person seem misguided and stupid. That doesn't mean they are.
Back to the original point. Blair gets a very bad rap, and quite rightly so for the reasons you said above. But he did have some fairly considerable successes during his tenure. Not least Northern Ireland.
First We Take Manhattan All Along The Watchtower Hallelujah Tainted Love Nothing Compares 2 U I Will Always Love You I Heard It Through The Grapevine I Fought The Law Respect Songbird When The Levee Breaks A Message To You Rudy Killing Me Softly With His Song
I didn't know that the most recognisable version (to me at least) of any of these songs were covers - the things you learn eh?
I knew most of those, but those ones were news to me!
Speaking of All Along the Watchtower, I wonder if there has been an artist who's been covered more than Bob Dylan?
Blair has an almost evangelical Christian like view of his time in power - he is blinkered by self belief. Totally delusional for me.
His leadership was a disaster for our country, certainly when it comes to foreign policy.
Why? I think he was broadly a successful PM with one horrendous stain on his record as opposed to a PM who got everything wrong. Why do you think he was a disaster? If it's just the Iraq war then fair enough no need to elaborate, just wondering if it was more than that.
i think i've posted this before but cash's version of hurt, coupled with the video and the backstory isnt just a decent cover - its one of the most moving pieces of art i've experienced.
for those uninitiated trent reznor wrote the orginal version of hurt and would close his Nine Inch Nails concerts with it. its a very personal account of addiction, loss, and generally fucking life up. its a raw song personal to him.
so when an aging, dying, ex country star decided he wanted to cover it reznor wasnt sure at all. when he did hear the finished version he said 'i feel like i've lost a girlfriend as that song's not mine anymore'. compliments dont come more heartfelt than that.
the video only adds to the pathos. cash is decrepit, his wife appear in the video - the pain looks very real. the montage sweeps his life before you. its a song and video that you experience as opposed to passively enjoy.
june tabor is a beautiful woman - anyone with a voice like that cant be described in any other way. the oysterband are a fantastic folk band. love will tear us apart is, at heart, a quintessentially english plaintive love song.
put em together and you get this:
picture the scene.
you are a sound engineer / record producer in the early sixties.
most of the artists you record use session musicians, trained in the proper traditional playing techniques of the fifties. the drums and basslines are in synch. the performers look like this:
they sing nice songs that mums and dads can listen to with their children.
its nice and safe.
then 4 scousers come in and record this:
this was recorded as the last song of an album recording session. lennon's voice at this point is red raw and close to breaking. they have been recording a mix of covers and, revolutionary at the time, their own numbers - pop stars then, like today, didnt write their own garb.
they have one, maybe two, shots at this before lennons voice completely gives way.
the lads by this time are sweating, shirtless and slapping and shouting to each other so as to hype each other up for the last take. you have never seen anything like this in your time in a british recording studio.
it is perfect. lennon rides his voice to breaking point [you can hear just how close to the edge he is] and the band push him every inch of the way.
the sound of beatlemania captured on record. listen carefully at the end and you can hear an ecstatic mccarteny shout 'YEAH!' as the last cymbals crash - he knows they have utterly nailed it
you as a sound engineer have never seen or heard anything like it.
you have just witnessed the early stages of a cultural revolution.
I know there was a thread about this many, many years ago but I couldn't find it going back to 2010 so thought I'd make a new one, plus we seem to have a distinct lack of music threads on here which kinda surprises me.
The UK and Saudi Arabia use Brimstone missiles. They cost a 100k each and seem like a really serious bit of kit. I do wonder if they are quite as good as we seem to think, otherwise surely all our allies would be buying them.
It's quite possible our allies don't see this as a particularly valuable or important feature
Thousands of civilians will die in this, for little strategic benefit. This is tragic. But also, we are playing exactly into Daesh's 'Western aggressor' narrative. We will turn civilians in Syria into members of the Islamic state, further perpetuating the cycle stated above. Finally, even forgetting the human cost, the financial cost to us is astronomical. That money could not only be spent on a better NHS/Schools etc, but could also provide better ways to protect this country and the world from terror attacks.
This quote is used a lot in comments about this and it is unclear as to what is being said, i think it means thousands of civilians will be killed accidentally by RAF bombers in Syria only. This won't happen.
Assad has killed tens of thousands of his civilians, daesh thousands as well, this is tragic. Any loss of life is bad.
daesh do not need bombing as an excuse to kill, Tunisian beach killings were because bikinis were being worn not burkas,
They are also against Shia Muslims as well, not just the CofE, although I doubt they can explain the difference between CofE and Catholicism.(mind I can't and neither could most people in the uk)
The financial marginal cost to the UK for adding bombing to Syria is relatively tiny. uK annual govt spending is about £600bn, the marginal cost of flying 12 jets (already paid for and salaries paid for) will be in the tens of millions. This is less than govt spends on the NHS between breakfast and lunchtime today.
Am I in favour of adding Syria to the counties where we can bomb daesh, meh - it's irrelevant, they hate us either way, and the UK bombing will make no strategic difference. The issue is important but not significant in the greater scheme of things.
Seriously? Did you not do Henry VIII at school? Or notice that old pope fella on the telly? Or sleep through the whole NI IRA thing?
I find the mood I'm in really effects how the drink affects me. I could be under the limit, pass a breathalyser, but still know that I'm not safe to drive. And vice versa.
That sounds potentially quite dangerous thinking to me. Would guess that's more your perception of reality than any genuine difference in reaction times etc.
Great thread. Huge issue that people think only impacts them.
One MASSIVE impact on it for me, as someone who is *ahem* over 30, is the shift from 3% to 5% lager. In the old days you could just about manage 2 pints in an hour and be under the limit. I think technically it was 1.5 pints of 3% beer? You metabolise roughly 1/2 a pint an hour I think.
Now? If you're drinking 5% beer you should really never drink more than one pint, or as Tighty says just don't drink at all. It's not an exact science as it varies massively from person to person.
Also another big issue is driving the following day when you are still drunk. If you had 8 pints and 6 hours kip you're very likely to still be over the limit.
Show Posts
