English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Only names change, but will there really be differences between the two since, i believe, some traditional practices are still in place in their government system-particularly with their blind support to the Zionist illegal activities in the Palestinian soil, and the so-called, war on terror, disregarding before the UN stand not to invade the sovereign country of Iraq.

2007-07-31 21:28:46 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

11 answers

Your terminology is such as to negate anything that you might have to say.

You refer to the legitimate actions of the government of Israel to protect its citizens from the Islamic extremist terrorists who are doing everything in their power to kill as many Israelis as possible--and this you have the audacity to term "Zionist illegal activities in the Palestinian soil."

Your blind hatred does not even permit you to use the name of that state, which is Israel.

Regarding that "Palestinian soil," the truth is that "The land in Palestine is lacking in people to till its fertile soil".
- British archaeologist Thomas Shaw, mid-1700s.

"Palestine is a ruined and desolate land".
- Count Constantine François Volney, XVIII century French author and historian -

That was the case until the Jews returned to their homeland (followed by myriads of Arabs, who claimed that they were born there).

In short, you hate so strongly that you blind yourself to reality. Pity.

2007-08-01 00:59:49 · answer #1 · answered by Ivri_Anokhi 6 · 0 0

Let's take an analogy
Brown sees himself as a socialist. However he like Bush is actually a Stalinist: do what I say and go into the little boxes I have prepared for yu, and above all don't be poor and clutter the streets

He has put more people into poverty. He allows a vast local tax to be fully paid by the poorest young person.
The moral: He will think of himself as an internationalist, while actually kow-towing more than any previous leader to America. The fine distinctions he makes in his speeches don't matter to Bush and those that will follow him, who will simply say jump and he ill say "considering all the possible consequences and reprecussions of the situation, the appropriate response, I believe, is 'is this high enough?'"

PS does Isreal down as Zionist really hack it: Isrealis are better than you imply and simply creating a uniform condemnation gets you nowhere when you have to attack the outrages that do occur.

2007-08-08 09:58:21 · answer #2 · answered by Teal R 5 · 0 0

No I don't think so (as a Brit) Gordon Brown is very different to Tony Blair. Brown wants to keep the UK/US special relationship (without strings) and use diplomatic language but there will be none of the closeness like with the Blair years. If you read the body language between the two men you would have noticed there was none of the smiles no silly jokes apart from that stupid golf cart stunt.
Gordon Brown was much more passionate when he was addressing the UN than he was with Bush. World politics is changing new world leaders are coming onto the world stage and they have their own agendas. Bush is slowly being pushed to the side as world politics change Bush is being frozen out. Just try to read the body language of other world leaders as they meet Bush then tell me if they are THAT close to Bush or his lap dog.

2007-08-01 06:31:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No.

The UK electorate do not want the Prime Minster to have as close a relationship with the US president as Tony Blair did. There was a recent article in the Telegraph about this.

2007-08-09 04:00:42 · answer #4 · answered by The Patriot 7 · 0 0

I think that Gordon Brown (head CEO for British Petroleum), Tony Blair, and George W. Bush are only puppets for the big oil companies, BP only being one of them.

2007-08-07 15:10:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well he comes from a nation of poodles Now be a good little poodle or I'll lay a newspaper across your nose.. now do as you were told !

2007-08-01 04:47:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

This is a test:
If you support and trust the UN give me a thumbs down, while if you think the UN is impotent, biased and useless give me a thumbs up.

2007-08-07 21:32:57 · answer #7 · answered by Michael J 5 · 0 0

Hmm... so that is how you criticize politicians who disagree with you. If they disagree with you and agree with the US, they are poodles, as if it is impossible for you to conceive that someone might have a different opinion than you.

2007-08-01 19:21:13 · answer #8 · answered by BMCR 7 · 0 0

YES. Absolutely.

2007-08-08 13:45:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

He already is a Bush's Poodle. His last speach confirmed it.

2007-08-01 04:38:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers