Whose done a better job for their country - Bush or Blair Watch

Poll: Whose Done A Better Job For Their Country - Bush or Blair
George Bush (6)
6.06%
Tony Blair (40)
40.4%
Both are great! (4)
4.04%
Both are rubbish! (49)
49.49%
SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 12 years ago
#21
(Original post by samba)
Politicians don't squander cash. NHS chiefs do. It needs to be more like the US system to be more efficient.

Again, all the PM does is allocate the cash. You need to look into the civil service and managers etc to see where it's been wasted
In which case why are you extolling their virtue as a positive on behalf of Blair? Any politician can throw someone elses money at a problem - some just aim their throwing arm better than others.
0
reply
2026
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 12 years ago
#22
they're both rubbish, though the former is more rubbish than the latter.
0
reply
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#23
Report 12 years ago
#23
(Original post by samba)
What has Blair done that's so poor out of interest?

We have a strong economy, money being plowed into public services, and a country thats generally looking OK.

Gordon Brown has screwed a few things up, and the government now looks very weak, but other then that he's done a pretty good job.

Ok, so he went to war with iraq. You may not believe in that, but he certainly did.

Bush on the other hand has screwed up the dollar, national power, and a whole host of other things.
strong econmy yes but our NHS and state schools are a joke.

Gordon Brown screwed up yes he did but labour built on what the conservatives did.

He went to a war his people almost unamonously decided they did not want just so he can play monkey see moneky do with bush.

They are both rubbish, Blair's country is awash with the moronic and the imbecilic from ASBO's which dont work a police force no one has any respect for because every time they try something they get accused of being racist or some such load of crap. To an immigration policy which welcomes all and let them live under the taxes i pay.
Yeah blair and labour are fantastic
0
reply
Champagne Breakfast
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#24
Report 12 years ago
#24
(Original post by Cadre_Of_Storms)
He went to a war his people almost unamonously decided they did not want just so he can play monkey see moneky do with bush.
To be fair I'd still rather leave foreign policy decisions in the hands of the government than in the hands of the people. My problem with Iraq was the fact that a) yes it was stupid and b) they lied about it. I think handing foreign policy decisions to the masses would be a rather dangerous thing to do however.
0
reply
Champagne Breakfast
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#25
Report 12 years ago
#25
(Original post by pumpkin7)
lol, i like the results of this.

bush is a ********.. he can't do anything on his own.
blair is his bum chum (for some reason) though i will give him more credit because he can do things on his own.. (like, without a script.. :p:)
Of course Bush can do stuff on his own - that's half the problem with America. You say he needs a script, but the only reason he appears so incompetent half the time is because he's rubbish on TV and hates the media with a passion. Goddamn right too, I think the media is evil and deserves to burn in hell. The guy's an idiot on TV yes, but that shouldn't affect our judgement of him. I for one am pleased he's decided to do something about terrorism around the world. And there's no doubting that he truly believes in all that God and morality crap he spouts the whole time, and I respect him for that.
0
reply
deedee8
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 12 years ago
#26
(Original post by The Ace is Back)
Of course Bush can do stuff on his own - that's half the problem with America. You say he needs a script, but the only reason he appears so incompetent half the time is because he's rubbish on TV and hates the media with a passion. Goddamn right too, I think the media is evil and deserves to burn in hell. The guy's an idiot on TV yes, but that shouldn't affect our judgement of him. I for one am pleased he's decided to do something about terrorism around the world. And there's no doubting that he truly believes in all that God and morality crap he spouts the whole time, and I respect him for that.
So why bomb Iraq?
0
reply
El Diablo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#27
finally bush got a vote! lol - was feeling a bit bad for him as he must of felt left out!
0
reply
Champagne Breakfast
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#28
Report 12 years ago
#28
(Original post by deedee8)
So why bomb Iraq?
To promote the interests of his country, which is his duty.
0
reply
deedee8
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 12 years ago
#29
(Original post by The Ace is Back)
To promote the interests of his country, which is his duty.
I didn't realise his duty was to line the pockets of his family and friends with money.
0
reply
Champagne Breakfast
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#30
Report 12 years ago
#30
(Original post by deedee8)
I didn't realise his duty was to line the pockets of his family and friends with money.
It's not. That just comes with the overall package
0
reply
deedee8
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 12 years ago
#31
(Original post by The Ace is Back)
It's not. That just comes with the overall package
OK leaving that aside. After 9/11, why remove the Bin Laden family from America and bomb Iraq? Do we believe Iraq was a prime player in 9/11 and has the action we have taken reduced the terrorism threat or increased it?
0
reply
LH
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#32
Report 12 years ago
#32
(Original post by deedee8)
OK leaving that aside. After 9/11, why remove the Bin Laden family from America and bomb Iraq? Do we believe Iraq was a prime player in 9/11 and has the action we have taken reduced the terrorism threat or increased it?
I've actually met a Bin Laden, she was a very nice person.
0
reply
Happyness
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#33
Report 12 years ago
#33
Both compare nothing to their formers.
0
reply
Champagne Breakfast
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#34
Report 12 years ago
#34
(Original post by deedee8)
OK leaving that aside. After 9/11, why remove the Bin Laden family from America and bomb Iraq? Do we believe Iraq was a prime player in 9/11 and has the action we have taken reduced the terrorism threat or increased it?
What have the Bin Laden family done to deserve anything?

After 9/11 he didn't immediately go and bomb Iraq did he? He went to Afghanistan to try and fish out Bin Laden, and to begin his search for what people collectively refer to as 'Al Qaeda'. Yes, a lot of rhetoric is involved - 'War against terror', 'Al Qaeda' etc. but I think it's a good cause and should have started way before 9/11. You seem to suggest that American fighting tactics (bombing targets) are needlessly destructive. Firstly, you have to remember that they have nobody to answer to but themselves, and their interests come above those of other countries (same with Britain or any other country), and secondly it has clearly been decided by America's military, incidentally one of the top militaries in the world, that it is the most effective means of fighting this kind of war. As civilians, who are we to say otherwise?

As for Iraq, I doubt it was a complete lie that they believed there to be WMDs there. I mean the people in charge would have had to take the advice of numerous high-ranking officials in intelligence agencies, the military, lawyers etc. before taking any action and it's pretty difficult to tell whether or not the highly secretive Saddam was keeping WMDs hidden in Iraq - he wasn't exactly being particularly cooperative.

We may have increased the immediate terror threat, but the choice was between that or letting a real problem grow to huge and potentially disastrous proportions. In my opinion we've left this all too late, but at least it's a start.
0
reply
M_Jenkins
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#35
Report 12 years ago
#35
This is like comparing a potato to a tomato. What's the point? The political structure of both countries are too different to judge them. Bush may not influence as much as Blair does in the legislative process and visa versa in other areas.
0
reply
deedee8
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 12 years ago
#36
(Original post by El Diablo)
finally bush got a vote! lol - was feeling a bit bad for him as he must of felt left out!
Yes but come on!! Anybody who voted for Bush must be.............?? They probably pressed the wrong button.......................... ..duck!!
0
reply
silverbolt
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#37
Report 12 years ago
#37
(Original post by deedee8)
So why bomb Iraq?
to get access to oil

and so he could round to daddy and say i did what you couldnt
0
reply
deedee8
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 12 years ago
#38
(Original post by Cadre_Of_Storms)
to get access to oil

and so he could round to daddy and say i did what you couldnt
surely not??
not to bring democracy, so all those poor Iraqi's could 'live happily ever after' and go to church and thank Jesus for all their blessings?
0
reply
high priestess fnord
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 12 years ago
#39
"they (terrorists- who else :rolleyes:) never stop thinking of new ways to harm our people and our country, and neither do we" - GW Bush
0
reply
guitargirl03
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#40
Report 12 years ago
#40
Even though I'm not a fan of him, I'd have to say Tony Blair.

He's had a good impct on schools, what with introducing Curriculum 2000 and Literacy Hour, both have had a good impact on primary school children especially.

Tony Blair has also dramatically improved hospitals, despite the recent media coverage.

Also, if it wasn't for labour, only a small percentage of British students would be able to go to uni, as the labour government made it accessible to all...
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1618)
79.2%
Leave (425)
20.8%

Watched Threads

View All