Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

User avatar
Vic Snazell-Sprey
Utter Cad
Posts: 50712
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby Vic Snazell-Sprey » 23 Feb 2011, 23:34

Yeah, we seriously need to rethink this one, Jeff.
Little Jim was no-one's fool - he owned the town's only jam butty mine.

User avatar
Jeff K
The Original K
Posts: 32690
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:08
Location: Pennsylvania USA
Contact:

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby Jeff K » 23 Feb 2011, 23:39

Clint Planet wrote:Yeah, we seriously need to rethink this one, Jeff.


I purposely vote for bad lists figuring that if they win, they'll be easier to beat when I have to face them in the later rounds. That's another reason why I didn't vote for you.
the science eel experiment wrote:Jesus Christ can't save BCB, i believe i can.

User avatar
Vic Snazell-Sprey
Utter Cad
Posts: 50712
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:22
Location: 16 Beasley Street

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby Vic Snazell-Sprey » 23 Feb 2011, 23:43

Jeff K wrote:I purposely vote for bad lists figuring that if they win, they'll be easier to beat when I have to face them in the later rounds. That's another reason why I didn't vote for you.


Me too. That's why I can't figure out how I didn't vote for you. I suppose I must have been drunk.
Little Jim was no-one's fool - he owned the town's only jam butty mine.

User avatar
fange
Posts: 11992
Joined: 20 Jan 2010, 11:30
Location: 香港

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby fange » 24 Feb 2011, 12:12

Oh well, ousted in round 3 - not too bad i guess, considering i got past Penk's fine list and that every track i picked is one close to my heart.

But i guess i'm lucky, i dig almost every style of music at least a little, so making a playlist just came down to throwing out a wide net in the direction of my albums and itunes, taking stock of what got landed, and then putting them into some kind of entertaining and thoughful order.

I would have liked to have put more jazz on my list, but that would've simply been a Cup deathwish - and as several have said before, it's the competition side of the Cup which gives it its special appeal for me, trying to choose songs you like that will strike a chord with others too.

Cheers for all those who voted for me, it's good to know i entertained at least some of you, and it's comforting - at least in a small fucking way - to know that the people who voted against me didn't seem to passionately hate too much of what was on there, but just seemed to like the other list/lists better. Or at least i'll take it that way.


WARNING - SOUR GRAPES
But, that said, it's still fucking annoying that i get beaten by a list that ends with Young's Albuquerque, Talking Heads' Heaven and The Pretenders' Message of Love. I mean, for fuck's sake people - sure, they're good songs, i like them ok too, though all three artists did better tunes - but after all the times you've heard them, endlessly replayed as the aural wallpaper of your long gone salad days, and on radio stations and stereos across the world ad nauseum to this day, did you really have to clutch at them so desperately above the lesser known delights i offered you...?

No, no you didn't... but fair play, and to the victor go the spoils; my opponent's list was pretty good except for that tepid triumvirate at the end, so sail on sailor, and may the sun's warm rays and fair weather greet you wherever you may voyage.

And in that spirit, here's a Message of Love to you, your list, and all who chose to sail on her...

Image
Jonny Spencer wrote:
fange wrote:I've got my quad pants on and i'm ready for some Cock.


By CHRIST you're a man after my own sideways sausage, Ange!

User avatar
T. Willy Rye
Spinner of crazy fuck-ass shit
Posts: 3540
Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 21:41
Location: Fogertyland

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby T. Willy Rye » 24 Feb 2011, 14:27

You're too kind Ange. This is what those no taste sailing motherfuckers deserve:

Image

User avatar
Insouciant Western People
Posts: 24627
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: The pit of propaganda

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby Insouciant Western People » 24 Feb 2011, 15:03

It's starting to look like I may soon be vacating this ridiculous charade.

And if I do, you fuckers are going to rue the day you provoked the wrath of twee.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
The Fish
Beer Battered
Posts: 12281
Joined: 24 Oct 2003, 20:04
Location: Hove Actually

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby The Fish » 24 Feb 2011, 15:56

The Idiot wrote: you fuckers are going to rue the day you provoked the wrath of twee.


Image

STEP AWAY FROM THE BUTTERFLY NET
We're way past rhubarb

User avatar
never/ever
Posts: 22086
Joined: 27 Jun 2008, 14:21
Location: Journeying through a burning brain

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby never/ever » 27 Feb 2011, 10:48

Fuck me. Is this all you lot can come up with after my fucking epic of a tirade?

You deserve to lose then. :lol:
Ever notice that anyone going slower than you is an idiot, but anyone going faster is a maniac?."

George Carlin

User avatar
Loki
The Goddess of Mischief
Posts: 15287
Joined: 18 Sep 2010, 06:34

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby Loki » 27 Feb 2011, 14:33

Jeff K wrote:
Clint Planet wrote:Yeah, we seriously need to rethink this one, Jeff.


I purposely vote for bad lists figuring that if they win, they'll be easier to beat when I have to face them in the later rounds.

Me too.


AHA! Now we know why some of us are out already.
Image

Look up here, I'm in heaven


whodathunkit wrote: Somewhere it's always 1972.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 65437
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby Diamond Dog » 01 Mar 2011, 08:17

This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.

I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.

On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.

I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

Backing Blair

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.

I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

French intransigence?

France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.

It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.

'Heavy price'

History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.

Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

Public doubts

The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.

Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

The threshold for war should always be high.

None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.

I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.

It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.

For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.

Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.

Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Threat questioned

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

Israeli breaches

Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.

I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.

Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.

That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.

Presidential differences

What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.

On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.

They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.

Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.

It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.

Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.

I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.




:x
Mason Cooley wrote:Worried about being a dull fellow? You might develop your talent for being irritating.


gash on ignore, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 22845
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby Toby » 01 Mar 2011, 10:59

B O R I N G

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 65437
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby Diamond Dog » 01 Mar 2011, 11:38

Who the fuck said it was supposed to be entertaining? :x
Mason Cooley wrote:Worried about being a dull fellow? You might develop your talent for being irritating.


gash on ignore, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

The Driver
Hippy Replacement
Posts: 2533
Joined: 30 Oct 2007, 08:58
Location: At work

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby The Driver » 01 Mar 2011, 12:37

Diamond Dog wrote:Who the fuck said it was supposed to be entertaining? :x

Are you talking about about your list?
He's an idiot savant. Without the savant.

User avatar
Loki
The Goddess of Mischief
Posts: 15287
Joined: 18 Sep 2010, 06:34

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby Loki » 03 Mar 2011, 00:44

Diamond Dog wrote:This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.

I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.

On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.

I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

Backing Blair

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.

I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

French intransigence?

France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.

It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.

'Heavy price'

History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.

Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

Public doubts

The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.

Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

The threshold for war should always be high.

None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.

I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.

It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.

For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.

Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.

Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

Threat questioned

Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

Israeli breaches

Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.

I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.

Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.

That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.

Presidential differences

What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.

The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.

On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.

They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.

Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.

It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.

Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.

I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.




:x

tl;dr
Image

Look up here, I'm in heaven


whodathunkit wrote: Somewhere it's always 1972.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 65437
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby Diamond Dog » 03 Mar 2011, 12:59

Loki wrote:tl;dr


And this is supposed to concern me?
Mason Cooley wrote:Worried about being a dull fellow? You might develop your talent for being irritating.


gash on ignore, who is currently on your ignore list, made this post.
Display this post.

User avatar
Rated B
Posts: 5209
Joined: 22 Jun 2010, 12:32
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell

Re: Bitter Recriminations 2011 - A New Dawn

Postby Rated B » 03 Mar 2011, 13:36

You sound unconcerned, tbh.

:lol:
And if I come in on a donkey, let me go out on a gurney