"If you want to be green – kill a cow" - Boris again!

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Taz_786, Jan 11, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=1R3HJKMTTP34FQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2007/01/11/do1101.xml

    I think he's an onanist..but a very entertaining one at that!

    Agree with him 100% in this case.
     
  2. Not really Taz,
    He went along supporting the war.
    He didn't want to appear anything other than a reliable clubbable type.

    And that's all he is - an affable clubbable buffoon.
    It amazes me that Angus Deaton gets the sack from HIGNFY for a little cocaine and hooker horseplay yet tossers like him and Hague who supported a completely wrong war in which people actually died get to sit in his chair!

    There are no standards of integrity left in this country.
     
  3. A lot of people supported the case for war, before it emerged that the evidence to support it was false.
     
  4. Boris should be careful of what he says
    [​IMG]
    Cows have their ways.
     
  5. I agree with Boris totally, and just so the wee ruminators death isnt in vain, make mine a Fillet steak medium rare thank you very much.

    SLRBoy you really do get boring by incessently going on and on about the war being illegal....its old news Pal move on why dont you before the ulcers set in!!

    edited to add. seeing as we talk when exhaling and exhaling produces CO2, then shouldnt we curb politicians from speaking? I mean when one is being interviewed and is asked a question with a simple yes or no answer...if they havent answered in at least three words, they should be zapped with a bolt of electricity....not from the mains though (that might cause extra greenhouse gases from the power stations), get one of them old wind up telephone aparatus's wire them to the interviewees nipples and watch Jeremy Paxman have a real old field day...


    Paxman: So prime minister is it not a fact that You have lied to Parliament, the British public and the members of our armed forces

    (crank crank crank)

    Tony BLiar: We in the....ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!

    Paxman: Is it not a fact that the British Army have been left inadequetly equipped and supported in Iraq?

    (crank crank crank)

    Tony BLiar: As we know....YEEEEARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

    Paxman: Come come Mr BLiar can you not answer simply yes or no?

    (crank crank crank)

    Tony BLiar: It is the.....OOOOOOH HOOOOOOARGHHHHHHH!!!!


    Jeez would I pay to see that!! :-D
     
  6. Geo7863 says,
    "SLRBoy you really do get boring by incessently going on and on about the war being illegal....its old news Pal move on why dont you before the ulcers set in!!"

    Far as I'm aware there is no statute of limitations on war crimes sonny.
    Seeing all these Lord Haw Haws still on the box is a sure sign that this country's still living with its head up its arrse.
     
  7. although this digresses from the 'kill a cow, save the planet' theme.........

    HAH HA HA HA HA War crimes!! thats a good un, dont you know, dont you have the age and wisdom and experience to know, that only the Losing side ever has it's leaders, or anyone else for that matter indicted on War Crimes charges....

    and as long as BLiar has a hole in his arrse, indeed as long as you have a hole in your arrse, we aint ever going to be in a position to be on the losing side, oh morally yes maybe, but really on the losing side as long as our government bends over and takes it like a good boy from our erstwhile colonial cousins.....

    So d'ya want a good canvas needle to sew yer hoop up in preparation?....it'll be a long wait .....daddy!!
     
  8.  
  9.  
  10.  
  11.  
  12. mmm the servicing work carried out by the site boffins have screwed things up a wee tad methinks!!
     
  13. Returning to thread,
    Lots of people supported the war.
    But the reasons for why they did so will have been as diverse as their public views will have been uniform.

    Example, I'm merely speculating but its possible isn't it that Boris not knowing much or indeed caring too about foreign affairs supported the war for private reasons.

    A career minded tory he could see that to get on with the party high command who are neo con supporters he should vote along with them and so stay in favour with them.

    His vote would have also been a public declaration that he therefore wasn't on the side of Ken Clark. No bad thing career wise in today's Tory party.

    He might act the buffoon but when the chips are down he can be 'relied on.'
     
  14. No SLRboy the thread is aboutBoris Johnson's article about cows producing more climate harminng gasses than any man made emissions.

    You decided to turn it into an anti war cry ...yet again... and have you been reading too many US conspiracy theory websites or what, since when have any conservatives been labelled neo-con in this country??

    and seeing as you have hijacked the thread and wwish to keep it on your subject matter.... can you tell me when anybody on a winning side of a conflict has been indicted for warcrimes as you alluded earlier on...


    and also have you considered the fact that as in your mind he is a buffoon then perhaps Boris actually believed the shite that BLiar spouted about WMD's etc etc and in that case voted in good faith?? I mean if the majority of the US beleived Dubya then why is it not feasible that a good load over here believed our beloved fuhre........prime minister?
     
  15. Geo,
    Duncan Smith, William Hague and Michael Gove fully supported the mad ambitions from the PNAC. I'm therefore correct in describing them as I did as neo con 'supporters'.
    The key is in the word 'supporter' geo, see?

    As for Johnson, had he really believed that Saddam was a threat to Britain he's a bigger fool than I would take him for.
    But I'm sure he's not a fool in that particular way.

    He, (obviously, unlike yourself) would have known of entities like The Office of Special Plans and the reason for its existence. The British Tories were familiar with the PNAC. Their ideas developed from the Thatcher/Reagan economic outlook but with added militarism.
    (Wiki will bring you up to some sort of belated speed if you want it to)
    I tell you what - why not be ahead rather than behind for a change - 'Iranian Directorate'- why not check it out and bring me something I don't know.

    It didn't take genius to get the gen and make the right Iraq call.
    If it had I wouldn't have been able to do it.

    Back to Boris.
    Why on earth would I who was up to speed on Iraq and made the right call at the right point of time be the slightest bit interested in the views on cow farts of a fool who got the war all wrong?
    (There are few things that would get a man blackballed from any club in which I'd be a member. But backing a war that lasts of twice as long as it should, half a million dead, a failed state where once there was order and made the world more insecure than it was before is one of them.
    Even I have some standards!)

    As for war crimes.
    Things have moved on since Nuremberg.
    Serbia's plans in Kosovo may have been thwarted but Serbia itself wasn't defeated but Milosevic was handed over to the Hague wasn't he?

    This is not the place - but I explained sometime ago how I thought that eventually it may be in a coming American and Britains governments interest to turn over these architects of disaster to an international court.