Friday, 30 August 2013

Whither Now Mush?




Incredible shock!  Parliament stood up for the nation last night and blew away the Tony Blair fantasist's plans.  Slapped down by a number of his own men as well as the opposition David Cameron failed to get the House to agree to go to war, some say this has not happened to a Prime Minister since 1792!  On that occasion it ended the war against American independence, so it is somewhat ironic that Cameron has failed to be poodle to the USA.  While few at this moment are intriguing against him, their are few alternatives making noises as yet, clearly a PM who cannot convince his party that his intentions were correct is seriously weakened.  Lets face it, we are all pleased about this are we not?   Interestingly the newspapers, including the 'Daily Mail,' screamed about his failure, also quite interestingly I noted 'The Sun' headline was 'Douglas confesses affair,' instead.  Rupert doing his best for his man.  Rupert known for his loyalty to his staff.

What now for Cameron?

The fall out for this decision is also quite interesting.  While the majority of the British public acknowledge their members of parliament, congratulating them on their victory, the USA has been somewhat put out.  When you have been used to working with the UK for so many years, and since Thatchers infatuation with the dementia ridden Reagan the US has looked on the UK as a mere puppet, it is quite difficult to accept the poodle has changed its mind.  The reaction from Washington reveals the intention to attack come what may has been in their minds for many years, and the reason is clear.  Iran threatens Israel, the US does whatever Israel wishes, so Iran must be dealt with.  Now I support Israel also, but not when they do wrong, and Iran under the Mullahs may well be dangerous, but other nations with nuclear missiles are also dangerous, Pakistan for instance.  The desire to attack Syria comes from the attempt to weaken Iran.  A dangerous ploy as this could set the whole region ablaze, and the US, with aid from the cheese eating surrender monkeys, will continue their build up to kill more Arabs, it doesn't matter which, and the type of situation we have seen since the late seventies will continue.

I could go on, I won't but sadly this situation will.  

.

13 comments:

Lee said...

I have nothing further to add...like the situation in the Middle East, that makes me pretty useless, I guess...

the fly in the web said...

He must be worried that he won't get the usual pay off from the americans...a job with Carlyle and the lecture circuit...

Relax Max said...

Like the weatherman, you stumble forward with no thought of what you predicted the day before. Out of sight, out of mind. :)

You do much better with history, my friend. More on the Greta War and less on Muslim Madness.

Incidentally, what do you think of your hero the great obama now? Just wondering.

Relax Max said...

"Cheese-eating surrender monkeys"? My, my. That's poodle talk.

Relax Max said...

1792?

So that's when the British war against American independence ended? Hmmmmm.

And Cornwallis' 1781 surrender at Yorktown? The Treaty of Paris in 1783?

Mere trifles. Ok, 1792.

I take back what I said about you being better with history. :)

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lee said...

It would appear that I did have something further to say. I probably shouldn't have vented my frustration in my previous comment on your blog, Adullamite...but having just heard the latest Syrian atrocity at the time of writing...etc., etc...it's little wonder I enjoy my almost reclusive existence...

I have the futile, fanciful, naive wish that for once the humans in this world would surprise us all, including themselves...and let peace reign for a change. They might find that it's enjoyable!!

But no...killing is more enjoyable, it would seem.

soubriquet said...

While it's true Cameron's motion to state, among other things, that "sufficient evidence existed to justify an attack upon Syrian government forces, in order to make impossible, or to deter the further useof chemical weapons", was defeated, it's not quite the landslide defeat nor clear mandate for change that some, including yourself, seem to suggest.

First, Camkeron's government never did have a clear mandate, it merely had a bit more support than the opposition, and secured government status merely because the liberal party, so far from having any chance at running the country their way, grabbed the ropes of Cameron's foundering ship, and offered to help bail it out if he'd throw them a scrap or two, every now and then. The lib's leader was allowed to sit on Cameron's shoulder like an organ-grinder's monkey, and given a fancy label as 'deputy prime-minister', while being told 'Don't touch the controls, don't try steer, keep your arse out of the Captain's seat, or we'll have you whipped.'
So an overwhelming force was hardly expected.
Meanwhile, on the opposition benches, sit a rabble with no leadership, one or two elder-statesmen sidelined, and forever stained by their previous obsequience to the respected and beloved leader, comrade president Tony Blair, all bow before his magnificence, who now travels the middle east brokering 'peace', with about the same level of success as he showed with the last 'It's not abour regime-change' war.

Quite simply, The government was NOT humiliatingly defeated.
The difference was seven votes.

A large number of MPs did not vote at all, or abstained, which I think is an appalling abnegation of their responsibilities, as representatives of constituencies.
If this country is debating action which may draw it into, or keep it out of war, quite frankly, I don't want to hear that my MP was on holiday, or too busy at the launderette, to take part.

The bottom line is that Tony Blair decided to go to war without a parliamentary scrutiny and vote. He took unto himself powers the british electorate had never granted, whereas Cameron set his intentions in parliament, in accordance with british law and precedent.

Further, he agreed to abide by the will of the people as shown by the vote.

Now I know you despise him altogether, but I give him all praise for refusing to don the unconstitutional and, I think, traitorous 'Presidential' mantle that Blair and Brown wore before him.
And, of all the weasels in parliament, who would you like to see in Downing Street?

Not Milliband, I'd hope? he doesn't know his arse from his elbow, and his brother, five minutes back, so keen to steer the labour party, so ready to run the country, loses his sibling tussle, and abondons totally his commitment to the people who elected him, and leaves the country.
His party aren't in government because their performance under Blair and Brown showed that they were incapable of running a piss-up in a brewery, that they were as riddled with corruption as a pack of bubonic rats, and about as trustworthy as an Aleppo street-vendor.

The only way this country will ever sort itself out is by appointing me King-Emperor and Absolute Ruler for Eternity. Swingeing changes will occur.

I'll be approachable by people seeking advancement. The post of Grand Vizier may be available. But remember, the great sword-blade of state will be kept sharp.
Fiddling of expense claims?
We'll start with one finger for the first spurious receipt.

soubriquet said...

Oh. And, wars being good for the economy, I'm thinking of declaring war against some unoccupied and remote island, far fom anywhere.

It could take years to fully subdue it, but ohhhh, picture the victory parade! The rejoicing!
And then, all my dissidents will get new posts of great responsibility, out there, surrounded by ocean. Well paid in the local currency. One boat a year will call.
I might found two towns. Cameronville and Glen-Milliband.
We'll set up the Lib-Dem villages in between, and offer each the concession of constructing a new high-speed rail-link across the island, that'll keep 'em busy and bankrupt for the next fifty years.

Jerry E Beuterbaugh said...

Did your Hearts lose again?

Adullamite said...

Lee, You are never useless.

Fly, He will scrape through somehow, he may claim benefits...

Max, Indeed I failed to see a revolt from MPs. I remain ashamed of that. Obama follows the Obama wants the best for his people, no harm in that. As a president he follows the israelis as they all do.
Nice to see 'French Fries' and wines are once again on sale in the US. Will they now invade Iraq?
You are right about the dates, I don't know where that came from, must be page number.

Lee, I removed the post just in case you regretted it.
It is understandable that feelings are aroused when such things are reported, but mind that much is not reported from elsewhere. It is strange such stories arise when they wish to send off missiles.
The middle east is full of terror. It always has been and always will. More have died in Iraq than in Syria but this is not reported on main channels.

Soub, It is not the government that has been defeated it is Cameron. When a PM does not get his policy accepted he is weakened, his government can stay by removing him. That may not be imminent but questions are being asked.
I am amazed at the number who 'forgot,' or 'didn't hear the bell.' Clear cowardice, not willing to oppose Cameron, not willing to support, just not being around!
Dreadful. TEN ministers did not vote!!!!

Indeed Cameron came before parliament but only because he thought he would win. The idea he could be defeated never crossed his mind. The missing ministers show how much he is losing his party.

Who for No. 10? You! King Soub sounds good to me, but this could affect entrance to the US. I am willing to act as regent, for a small fee of course.
Milliband? Just Cameron without the slyness.

How much influence does the war machine makers have here I wonder?

Adullamite said...

Jerry, Hearts lose 'again?' Maybe aye, maybe na.

Lee said...

I figured as much, Adullamite...thanks. :)