PSB interview in Berlin paper

Message

Kandu · #31 Post by **Kandu** » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 12:40 am

Pani wrote:The same like you I suppose,
sitting in front of a computer.

Sorry, but I'm not the topic in
here.

You deserve your own topic here.

J.

Acelera · #32 Post by **Acelera** » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 1:09 am

Pani wrote:
Flaffer wrote:chris is 49 as well
Which could mean that the whole
article/interview is a lie ...

I can see it now. Chris Lowe sues German magazine for making him 4 years older.

Yula · #33 Post by **Yula** » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 1:34 am

I would not like it if anybody mixed my age like that.

Devices · #34 Post by **Devices** » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 6:08 am

- They openly disagree about Iraq (Chris: "We were deeply divided.")
and whether there's a link between Western politics and terrorist attacks
(Neil: "It's hard to say if there's a link.").

Has it been determined yet when exactly they started disagreeing?

As most of us will recall... before the war they were both in agreement against it.

Piotrek · #35 Post by **Piotrek** » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 7:05 am

Pani wrote:
Piotrek wrote:
Pani wrote: Not yet ...
Secondly, I would like the profile Avatar of yours back, pleeeeeeeease!!
You mean this one?

Yes, yes, yes.

Guest · #36 Post by **Guest** » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 12:25 pm

Has it been determined yet when exactly they started disagreeing?
As most of us will recall... before the war they were both in agreement against it.

The article's very long and my bits are definitely simplistic,
and my English is not up to do a flawless translation anyway,
but since it's such a touchy subject, let me explain further.

Basically they say what they've said before about Iraq:
Chris rejected to go to war right from the start
and fears it's been a boost for
the supporters of terrorists, Neil was in favour of an invasion
in order to get rid of Saddam, but he also says he's
"very critical about the whole enterprise nowadays" because
he understands that the US don't have the proper plan for Iraq
he believed them to have.
Here Chris jumps in: "I warned you so.", Neil consequently
declares it's though difficult to say whether there's a link between
the war and the attacks [in London]. And he points out
that 9-11 happened before the Iraq war.
Chris disagrees by stating that 9-11 was a reaction
to US politics like the Iraq war of 1990 and US military
presence in Saudi Arabia. Neil has "doubts about that".

They have quite a dispute, and that is interesting to read.
Hope that helps.

Flaffer · #37 Post by **Flaffer** » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 2:08 pm

thanks Pepe, very interesting

Zeus On The Loose · Sun 24 Jul 2005, 5:02 pm

Hmm, Chris's stance about this seems to be identical to mine.

Hmm...

Zog · #39 Post by **Zog** » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 5:05 pm

Zeus On The Loose wrote:Hmm, Chris's stance about this seems to be identical to mine.

Hmm...

... and mine.

-Zog

Acelera · #40 Post by **Acelera** » Sun 24 Jul 2005, 6:38 pm

Neil is the Blairite and did admit he had agreed with the idea of dethroning Hussein in principle. Chris did say before the elections that the whole Iraq thing was a disgrace and that he'd vote for the Lib Dems.

Trixiemix · #41 Post by **Trixiemix** » Mon 25 Jul 2005, 1:49 am

THANKS for posting !! Very interseting ! As for Neil......Hmmm

glennjridge · #42 Post by **glennjridge** » Mon 25 Jul 2005, 2:56 am

despite their different views its hard for me to picture them fighting or mad at each other about anything.

black · #43 Post by **black** » Mon 25 Jul 2005, 9:32 am

Flaffer · #44 Post by **Flaffer** » Mon 25 Jul 2005, 1:32 pm

black wrote:Any people deserve the rulers they have! And if their ruler is treating them badly wouldn't the 'saviour' at first make a referendum what the suffering people would choose

yeah I can really see that happening - let's start sending the papers to Mugabe et al.

Jack · #45 Post by **Jack** » Mon 25 Jul 2005, 1:44 pm

Zog wrote:
Zeus On The Loose wrote:Hmm, Chris's stance about this seems to be identical to mine.

Hmm...
... and mine.

-Zog

....and mine.

It's funny, because through the years, it has always seemed that Neil was a raving left winger, and that Chris wasn't really interested in politics. Didn't Chris even jokinly call him part of the Looney Left in the book Literally?

It seems that Chris is much more political now that he has matured, and not only that, that his politics are further left than Neil's.

Regradless of my own politics, I am actually quite surprised by Neil's views on Iraq etc given what I already knew about him. Of course he is entitled to them and they are no less valid than my own views, I'm just surprised.