https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk-Yjxnzxb0

On 7/6/2016 8:40 PM, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk-Yjxnzxb0

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...idApp_Facebook

"harry" wrote in message
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk-Yjxnzxb0


The bloke on that video looks a bit dodgy. I am not sure I would want him to
present a sports report with autocue.

--
Adam

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:40:31 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

Yes. Next question?

AB

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Personally, I find it very strange that to drive a bus, fly a plane etc, you
need training and tests to make sure you know what you are doing, but nobody
seems to use this approach to anyone taking up a position of power in a
government.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"newshound" wrote in message
...
On 7/6/2016 8:40 PM, harry wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk-Yjxnzxb0

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...idApp_Facebook

On 7/7/2016 8:08 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Personally, I find it very strange that to drive a bus, fly a plane etc, you
need training and tests to make sure you know what you are doing, but nobody
seems to use this approach to anyone taking up a position of power in a
government.

Brian

Not quite true, I think you will find that cabinet level people have
quite a lot of training in various sorts of security, especially of
information and IT related.

I thought the interesting point in the Guardian article was the idea
that Blair ultimately decided he was going to support the USA almost
whatever they did (and that trying to follow the UN route would help to
curtail the lunatic fringe).

That, of course, led him into all sorts of trouble eventually but I
would argue that sometimes the job of a leader is to decide whether
"high level" considerations might trump lower level ones. Only history
in the long run can really make the judgements.

I'd say removing Saddam was a good thing but the subsequent
implementation was massively flawed. Don't forget that Saddam bought it
all down on himself, though.

Wittering on about "legality" and "dodgy dossiers" is just farting
around at the edges.

Some people wanted to charge Churchill and Bomber Harris with war
crimes. I say "Get over it".

On 07/07/2016 11:40 AM, newshound wrote:
On 7/7/2016 8:08 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Personally, I find it very strange that to drive a bus, fly a plane
etc, you
need training and tests to make sure you know what you are doing, but
nobody
seems to use this approach to anyone taking up a position of power in a
government.

Brian

Not quite true, I think you will find that cabinet level people have
quite a lot of training in various sorts of security, especially of
information and IT related.

I thought the interesting point in the Guardian article was the idea
that Blair ultimately decided he was going to support the USA almost
whatever they did (and that trying to follow the UN route would help to
curtail the lunatic fringe).

That, of course, led him into all sorts of trouble eventually but I
would argue that sometimes the job of a leader is to decide whether
"high level" considerations might trump lower level ones. Only history
in the long run can really make the judgements.

I'd say removing Saddam was a good thing but the subsequent
implementation was massively flawed. Don't forget that Saddam bought it
all down on himself, though.

I read that Saddam had intentions of controlling his own country's oil
prices by dumping the Dollar. The war was committed to a long time
before then. USA has to control everything.


Wittering on about "legality" and "dodgy dossiers" is just farting
around at the edges.

Some people wanted to charge Churchill and Bomber Harris with war
crimes. I say "Get over it".

"RayL12" wrote in message
...
On 07/07/2016 11:40 AM, newshound wrote:
On 7/7/2016 8:08 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Personally, I find it very strange that to drive a bus, fly a plane
etc, you
need training and tests to make sure you know what you are doing, but
nobody
seems to use this approach to anyone taking up a position of power in a
government.

Brian

Not quite true, I think you will find that cabinet level people have
quite a lot of training in various sorts of security, especially of
information and IT related.

I thought the interesting point in the Guardian article was the idea
that Blair ultimately decided he was going to support the USA almost
whatever they did (and that trying to follow the UN route would help to
curtail the lunatic fringe).

That, of course, led him into all sorts of trouble eventually but I
would argue that sometimes the job of a leader is to decide whether
"high level" considerations might trump lower level ones. Only history
in the long run can really make the judgements.

I'd say removing Saddam was a good thing but the subsequent
implementation was massively flawed. Don't forget that Saddam bought it
all down on himself, though.

I read that Saddam had intentions of controlling his own country's oil
prices by dumping the Dollar.

That mangles the real story.

The war was committed to a long time before then.

Like hell it was. Bush and his advisors were
looking for an excuse. 9/11 provided it.

USA has to control everything.

How odd that Bush's dad had enough of a clue to
not even invade Iraq after the first gulf war had ended.

Wittering on about "legality" and "dodgy dossiers" is just farting
around at the edges.

Some people wanted to charge Churchill and Bomber Harris with war
crimes. I say "Get over it".

On 10/07/2016 04:28, RayL12 wrote:
On 07/07/2016 11:40 AM, newshound wrote:
On 7/7/2016 8:08 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Personally, I find it very strange that to drive a bus, fly a plane
etc, you
need training and tests to make sure you know what you are doing, but
nobody
seems to use this approach to anyone taking up a position of power in a
government.

Brian

Not quite true, I think you will find that cabinet level people have
quite a lot of training in various sorts of security, especially of
information and IT related.

I thought the interesting point in the Guardian article was the idea
that Blair ultimately decided he was going to support the USA almost
whatever they did (and that trying to follow the UN route would help to
curtail the lunatic fringe).

That, of course, led him into all sorts of trouble eventually but I
would argue that sometimes the job of a leader is to decide whether
"high level" considerations might trump lower level ones. Only history
in the long run can really make the judgements.

I'd say removing Saddam was a good thing but the subsequent
implementation was massively flawed. Don't forget that Saddam bought it
all down on himself, though.

I read that Saddam had intentions of controlling his own country's oil
prices by dumping the Dollar. The war was committed to a long time
before then. USA has to control everything.

Don't forget there were sanctions imposed on Iraq prior to the second
Gulf war.