The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[BBOvenGuy]

The Bush administration has decided the Guantanamo Bay prisoners are terrorists and are therefore not "enemy combatants" who would be protected under the Geneva Convention. That's how they justify trying these people before military tribunals, too.



And yes, Partisan, it's the "public curiosity" bit that is open to spin and interpretation.

"Sure it's simple, writing for kids. Just as simple as bringing them up." - Ursula K. LeGuin

Edited by: BBOvenGuy  at: 3/23/03 7:46:39 pm

[Penrose Orleans]

I haven't been doing any more than skimming this thread, because I knew that listening to reasonable voices would make me depressed in this nation of double-speak... I just have one thing to say.



Whether or not you believe that the war is unjustified/immoral/useless, isn't it incredibly disturbing to see the war on TV? I turn on CNN and I'm surprised that they're not broadcasting the actual firefights, they show so much. In my mind, this is going down the same path as broadcast car chases and all other types of sensationalist journalism, and is really irresponsible... I know that it's part of modern society, and that it's really been institutionalized, but for crying out loud...! --Nora

"Un delgadísimo halo negro rodeaba el ojo y lo inscribía en la carne rosa, en la piedra rosa de la cabeza vagamente triangular. . . que le daban una total semejanza con una estatuilla corroída por el tiempo.” –Julio Cortázar, "Axolotl"

[runnerbird]

To add to BBOvenGuy's info...



Under the terms of the Geneva Convention, POWs cannot be interrogated and are only required to give name, rank and serial number, but by calling these prisoners 'terrorists' or delaying their classification as 'POWs,' the US can interrogate them further. For further information about this issue, I found an article from The Guardian.

[Kendahl897]

Well, it's interesting to note that CNN is starting to back away from the story that a cache of chemical weapons was found..Jamie McIntyre sounded very skeptical and said it is now believed to have been a plant where chemical weapons 'at one time' might have been produced..He said that they would have to wait until tomorrow for the complete facts, but he seemed very skeptical of it based on what he was hearing..Funny thing is, you could almost hear the frustration in Aaron Brown's voice when Jamie said that..They also believe the Iraquis that have the POW's are not part of the regular Army, but a radical group of guerillas loyal to Saddam's son. I guess my point is to be very skeptical of all you hear right now as the networks seem to be competing with each other to see who can break news the quickest...

[Pipsqueak]

Thanks muchly for the information, Bob and runnerbird. That article from the Guardian was especially helpful. I'm not quite so clueless now.

Live each day as if it were your last; and one day, you'll be right.
| Pipsqueak's Music Videos |

[sprhrgrl]

Penrose Orleans - it's like COPS on a national scale. Theme music and everything.



Okay, maybe not so much with the theme music.

sprhrgrl.com

counting*stars

racism=sexism=homophobia

The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off. – Gloria Steinem

[bluemote]

just to say 'good work' to everyone who demonstrated against the war this weekend. there was about 7000 of us in edinburgh and more in glasgow. i hear different stories about numbers in london.



however, there has been NO media coverage that i have found this morning that mentioned anything remotely positive about the march. i for one was greatly encouraged by so many schoolkids being there and i hope they continue to make their voices heard.



the main message is one of peace, safe wishes for the people involved, and change for the future. i can only hope that the people ruling the country realise that the display on saturday was a picture of REAL democracy and that they will listen to the people eventually.



sorry if i offended anyone.

[friskylez]

I wasnt going to post in this thread again until i read this-



"It's not so much that Americans don't think feel concern about people in other countries; it's just that for them that sense of community means that everyone should be just like Americans and helping them become that way is for the best."



Im gonna guess here and say DMW that i think you are talking about the United States as a country and not the American people per ce, at least i hope so..



For the record i love the diversity and culture of other countries, dont think they should be "just like americans" at all..Im sure they feel better now knowing this "ugly" american doesnt want to change them..



I have traveled to Greece, Italy, France, Austria and Switzerland and loved the cultures of all those..Id love

to visit Ireland, Australia, Spain and a few others some day..

I think ill leave those countries the way they are to..



Some of the comments about the US, Americans and the one sided discussion in this thread really disturbs me, but because im in the minority and dont want to get flamed, im not going to comment on any of them..Thats all, leaving now

"Life is what happens while waiting for your ship to come in"

[cassiopeia191]

I think it's rather ironic that the US government is so concerned with international law now.

Iraq and America both violated the Geneva convention --Rumsfel today said that showing prisoners of war is something the US does not do. Oh, yes?



friskylez, I'm sure you won't be flamed for expressing your opinion and if you decide not to participate any longer, it's your choice but if everyone who has a different opinion than the majority does that, a dialogue will never actually take place.

This is a topic that provokes strong emotions but I hope you don't feel bashed in your opinion ... I would be very sorry to see that but in a discussion, especially one like this, POVs clash and if I feel like I don't understand your arguments or can't agree with them, I will voice that opinion and I hope you do the same thing to me. And one of the reasons why this is "one sided" is that the majority of people in this world is opposed to this war. Hope to see you back.

[maudmac]

I've known people from all over the world, every inhabited continent, and the perception that many Americans tend to think our way of life is really better than everyone else's is something I've heard from pretty much every one of them. I imagine that most people probably prefer their own cultures to others. That seems normal and natural to me. What I hear from people from other countries, though, is that many Americans are often arrogant about that. I know I've heard Americans make comments often enough that if X country were more like America, it would be a better place. More often, though, I've heard Americans, myself included, say things like, "Wow, X country was really different, but I liked it a lot."



I myself encounter regionalism from other Americans often enough that I'm pretty willing to accept it when people from other countries say that many Americans in their experience are somewhat nationalistic. If the culture of my part of America is openly despised, and often by Americans who have never even been to the South, I cannot doubt that some Americans tend to be arrogant.



However, no country is immune to nationalism. Every nation on Earth is the home to some people who look down their nose at any culture or nation that's different, as well as the home to some people who respect and honor the amazing diversity of this planet's cultures. Virtually everyone from another country I've ever met is very fond of America, whether they live here or were just visiting. If there are aspects of American culture that don't sit well with them, well, I think that's fair. There are aspects of America culture that don't sit well with me, either. And I imagine if I spent enough time in any other country, I would probably discover aspects of that country's culture I didn't like.



I guess what I'm getting at is that I think it's valid to be critical of any nation. It just so happens that America is very heavily involved in this particular war, so naturally, most of the comments will be about America and its foreign policy.

Quote:

---

Some of the comments about the US, Americans and the one sided discussion in this thread really disturbs me, but because im in the minority and dont want to get flamed, im not going to comment on any of them.

---

Linda, if you feel it's one-sided, it'll only get more so if your voice is absent. This thread is for all of us to speak up about what we think. Every single one of us, no matter what our views are, has a place here; this is a dialogue and everyone's views are valid.

---

i know there is strength
in the differences between us
and i know there is comfort
where we overlap

[DianaBouvier99]

Quote:

---

The problem here is, the United States is entering the world stage. Is America the only nation affected by Iraq's arms? Is it the only nation that is concerned over who controls Iraq's oil?

---

You are welcome Kalita.



Edited because I don't want to upset anyone with my venting.

Edited by: DianaBouvier99 at: 3/24/03 4:35:58 pm

[Kieli]

Ok after reading the following articles about our Dear Senator Byrd (after his eloquent speech), I'm inclined to retract my support for the man:



www.townhall.com/columnis...0307.shtml



vikingphoenix.com/news/ma...002-05.htm



I don't know if I should smack myself or wonder if his words about the war ring true.

Love is tricky. It is never mundane or daily. You can never get used to it. You have to walk with it, then let it walk with you. You can never balk. It moves you like the tide. It takes you out to sea then lays you on the beach again. Today's struggling pain is the foundation for a certain stride through the heavens. You can run from it but you can never say no. It includes everyone."--Amy Tan "The Hundred Secret Secret Senses"

[Kendahl897]

Alot of adjectives could be used to describe Senator Byrd..He's got quite a colorful past and I don't support alot of what he has stood for ...He's single-handledly managed to move half the federal gov't buildings to West Virginia with pork-spending..But what he is well -informed and well-versed on is the Constitution..What he is saying, from what I gather, is that you just can't give the president, any president, carte blanche power to send troops off to fight without there first being a major debate in Congress..What he is saying is that Congress has ceded their responsibilties...

[Kieli]

And those things he is saying I wholeheartedly agree with. *shudder* I just had to consider the source and wonder if I was going mad.

Love is tricky. It is never mundane or daily. You can never get used to it. You have to walk with it, then let it walk with you. You can never balk. It moves you like the tide. It takes you out to sea then lays you on the beach again. Today's struggling pain is the foundation for a certain stride through the heavens. You can run from it but you can never say no. It includes everyone."--Amy Tan "The Hundred Secret Secret Senses"

[The Partisan]

Interesting side note regarding Senator Byrd. As the President pro tempore of the Senate, he's third in line of succession, after VP Dick Cheney, and Speaker of the House John Hastert.



Makes you think, don't it?



Edited:



It occurs to me that this may have changed after the '02 election, in which case, Byrd may once have been in the position, but might've lost it, since the Democrats lost control of the Senate.

Edited by: The Partisan at: 3/24/03 12:21:54 pm

[dekalog]

ignore - this was angry Canadian rant about Diana's quote - nevermind - pay no attention - move away from this post slowly and in an orderly fashion thanks (eh)

Edited by: dekalog at: 3/24/03 3:25:32 pm

[Kieli]

Oh I SO cannot believe that the Miss USA Pageant (don't mock! I watch it because it's funny to poke fun at the Barbies ) and Miss Texas was asked the question "Do you think it was right for celebrities to speak out against the war publicly?" by none other than George Bush's freakin' nephew who was Emcee of the show! My jaw hit the damn floor. That was THE cheapest shot I have ever seen in my life. Not to mention, when Miss Texas responded, she rambled on about how we should appreciate our freedoms while missing the point about Freedom of Speech! Why am I NOT surprised? I was so disgusted, I threw my remote at the TV and decided my time was better spent online. Bleh. Rant over now. I'm not sure I feel better.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

[4WiccanLuv]

I've read all the pages of this thread and have finally decided to say my peace. I've read so much here that it makes my head want to explode. Hopefully my post isn't as erratic or offensive to anyone as it is not my intention, so please bear with me, these are just my feelings on the matter.



I'm one of the very very few in this thread that supports the current administration. I don't believe we have acted unilaterally as is the claim. Presently, over 35 nations compose the coalition. That means thirty-five nations are giving support, financial aide and volunteering troops in the effort to remove Saddam Hussein power, liberate Iraq and recover any and all WMD. The US does not stand alone and that's good enough for me, whether we have UN approval or not. Sure, we lack worldwide support, as is evidenced by many of our "friends" bailing when the tough got going and frankly, this is no surprise to me. What matters to me is American opinion and currently, the polls show that 70% plus of the population supports this war and President Bush.



I am amazed that some people feel this war is about oil. If this were the case, the easiest solution would have been to lift the economic sanctions placed on Iraq and we could have bought oil from them to our heart's content. Further, if US were the war-mongering nation poised to rule the world and impose the American way of life, why not go into Venezuela and take over their oil wells? After all, they are prime for the taking what with the instability their country is currently faced with. I balk at these accusations, as they do not make one iota of sense to me.



This war is about the removal of an evil tyrannical menace to world security and to the Iraqi people, Saddam Hussein. I am not that naive that I refuse to see that this war will bring about great losses to all involved, not to mention civilian casualties, which I greatly regret, as do all. But I choose to have faith in our government when they say they are trying to limit loss of civilian life. The military is not indiscriminately carpet bombing the whole of Iraq; they are not there to annihilate them. If that were the case this war would have been over in an instant. They are not targeting communities, schools, hospitals and thus far, the targets have been strategic i.e.…SH's palaces, governmental buildings and military bases. They are trying to keep their infrastructure in tact so as not to hurt them further. I only wished that SH cared for his people as much as our government does. Instead he uses his people as human shields. That coward and his thugs hide behind their women and children. I have heard enough accounts from people that have escaped Iraq with their lives. Some of the things I've heard about what life is like under SH's rule, makes my skin crawl. It is shameful that it has gone on this long and and it must end.



Why go after Saddam now? Saddam has had more than enough time (12 years) to comply and disarm and he has flat out refused and thumbed his nose at the world. What about al Qaeda, the true culprits of 9/11? As the first strikes began in the war against Iraq, roughly 1,000 U.S. troops launched a raid on villages in southeastern Afghanistan, almost simultaneously. The hunt has continued in full force for Osama bin Laden and members of the al Qaeda terrorist network. So, no, we have not forgotten, it's just not on the front pages.



On another note, it seems that many feel that the media is biased and that we are not getting the real picture here. You may have a point. This is war and we're not privy to many things, for security reasons. We're probably getting a minimal portion, but enough that I can draw this conclusion and feel comfortable with it. IMHO, I feel the media has been more than fair when reporting. On my screen, I've seen the gung-ho G.I. Joe front line action, but I have also seen severely hurt civilians in the hospitals and dead civilians laying in the streets and it is heartbreaking. I have also seen the masses come together across the world in anti-war protests. Matter of fact, I feel they are getting a larger share of press then the pro-war, pro-Bush people. Some pages back someone said:

Quote:

---

"Peaceful demonstrators are being touted as criminals."

---

There are laws about civil disobedience. Disrupting businesses, creating massive gridlock on our streets, policemen being pelted with stones, bottles and metal bolts, opening of fire hydrants, knocking over newsstands and garbage cans…peaceful…not so much. Granted, this is just one extreme example in San Francisco a week back, but some of these protests have become ugly. Everyone is entitled to speak their minds, that is our right, but I for one, would like to see it done in a more peaceful manner, which ironically enough is what the demonstrators are advocating.



My belief is that this entire fiasco could have been avoided had the UN properly carried out their resolutions and disarmed Saddam. Instead, they slapped him on the wrist and gave him more time, meaning Resolution 1441. Time he used to better hide his WMD. Time enough to lead the inspectors on a wild goose chase. The UN inspectors got played. The UN has failed miserably and have become irrelevant, IMO. Hans Blix is posturing windbag; he did nothing to solve this dilemma. His diplomatic abilities and judgement leave little to be desired. Its no wonder Bush chose to bypass the UN all together.



Honestly, I hoped things wouldn't escalate to this point, but they have and now all I can do is hope for a swift end to this war and the safe return of our troops. Men and women who I am so very grateful to, men and women, who don't know me from Adam, but are putting their lives on the line for my protection and benefit. I am very proud of them. I am for peace, but not at any cost.



This is the opinion of someone that is not on the far Right or the far Left, but somewhere in the middle of the road. I don't feel that the US/Americans are superior to any other nation or people. We have our share of domestic problems, as does every nation. The US happens to be where I live and it just so happens to be the land that I love, problems and all. I am one voice of an average American.



Linda

_____________


"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty." - John F. JFK

Edited by: maudmac at: 3/25/03 2:22:12 pm

[barnabasvamp]

4WiccanLuv;



Here, Here!! I am impressed with the amount of time you obviously put into your response.

Your points regarding the arguments about oil, and the UN failing to carry out their responsibilities are quite impressive.



You have found another in this thread that agrees with you completely. You haven't taken a side, merely expressed what alot of us have been feeling, but were hesitant to post.



Thank you for your honesty!

BV

"When choosing between two evils, I always like to take the one I've never tried before"-Mae West

[Diebrock]

4WiccanLuv, I have a problem with your post. Not because you have a different opinion than I do, but because of one little insulting sentence.

Quote:

---

Sure, we lack worldwide support, as is evidenced by many of our "friends" bailing when the tough got going and frankly, this is no surprise to me.

---

As a German I take exception to that.

We place the largest troop contingent (after US) in Afghanistan. We were there from the beginning. We have ABC reconnaissance tanks stationed in Kuweit as part of the Anti-Terror war, as well as ships patrolling the gulf.

We even grant overflight rights (that is support) which could very well be against our constitution if the Iraq war is decided to be against international law, meaning it is not seen as defense.

We are involved in the Balkans.



But now we are cowards because we don't agree with this war and decided not to participate but to try to give the inspectors more time. Which is a moot point at this time. Now we all hope that it is over as soon as possible.



This little sentence is to me like the invocation of Hitler in an argument as we already discussed in this thread. You may have good arguments, that might have even convinced me or at least made me think a little differently. But you stated that we were cowards ("bailing when the tough got going") and that that didn't surprise you even.

I know it isn't like that, so what else of your argument can I believe?



Please don't see this as criticism of your opinion but as criticism of your one sentence that dismisses the people against the war as cowards.

_____________________

"MURDERERS! Remember Orca!!! Free Willy!!!" Yun-kyung bellowed. "The shark in Jaws was just misunderstood!" - Castaway
I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[darkmagicwillow]

4WiccanLuv, thanks for taking time to post and continue the debate. Expressing your opinion is not offensive at all.

---

I am amazed that some people feel this war is about oil. If this were the case, the easiest solution would have been to lift the economic sanctions placed on Iraq and we could have bought oil from them to our heart's content.

---

You might want to read my post about the war and oil. No one has said that it's about importing more oil; it's about the oil companies making more money by obtaining control of Iraq's oil resources in the same way that they're making money after the war in Afghanistan by building the trans-Afghan pipeline. There's also a lot of money to be made by military and reconstruction contractors as well.

---

Further, if US were the war-mongering nation poised to rule the world and impose the American way of life, why not go into Venezuela and take over their oil wells? After all, they are prime for the taking what with the instability their country is currently faced with. I balk at these accusations, as they do not make one iota of sense to me.

---

A good question, but one with answers. First, it would be more difficult to justify going to war against Venezuela; we haven't fought a recent war against them, and Venezuela's culture is not as alien as Iraq's muslim one. Second, the country's not ripe for the taking. It would be more difficult to win a war against them than Iraq. With its high mountains and Amazonian jungles, Venezuela's terrain is much more difficult to deal with than Iraq's desert. The U.S. military remembers what's happened in Vietnam, and with anti-government forces already lurking in Venezuela's jungles, it has no desire to get into what would likely be a repeat of that defeat.



If you go through the other major oil producing countries, you'll find that they're either already within the U.S. sphere of influence where American economic interests can operate freely, like Mexico who's part of NAFTA, or the other Persian Gulf states, most of whom have accepted U.S. military forces freely, or they're more difficult targets like Indonesia, Russia and the former SSRs, or Venezuela.

---

This war is about the removal of an evil tyrannical menace to world security and to the Iraqi people, Saddam Hussein.

---

Let me respond to your question about my reasons with one about yours. If the U.S. really wants to elimate evil dictators, why not go after Kim Il Jung? After all, while Hussein may or may not have real weapons of mass destruction (that is, ones capable of taking out a city), Kim Il Jung already has missiles capable of reaching the U.S. and if he doesn't already have nuclear weapons, is expected to have them within a year or two. There's plenty of other choices after North Korea too.



On the other side, if you want to believe that the U.S. invades other countries to remove tyrants, you have to address the tyrants the U.S. has installed such as the Shah of Iran or the dictator of Chile, Pinochet. And what about the puppet governments that the U.S. installed in Grenada and Panama in the 1980's?

---

What matters to me is American opinion and currently, the polls show that 70% plus of the population supports this war and President Bush.

---

Given that this has changed from less than 50% a little over a week before the war, I don't think this indicates concrete support for Bush. People almost always rally around a war in the early days if they think they can win without large losses. Recall how popular WWI was in the European nations in the early days of 1914, and how they felt about later. The popularity won't last if the war isn't over quickly.

--

"Omnia mutantur, nihil interit." -- "Everything changes, but nothing is truly lost."

Edited by: darkmagicwillow at: 3/25/03 5:58:32 am

[justin]

Quote:

---

There's plenty of other choices after North Korea too.

---

Such as China. Except I don't remember hearing any calls to attack their, even after Tianamen Square (sp) or with China's constant harassment of Taiwan.

I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am

[DianaBouvier99]

Quote:

---

If the U.S. really wants to elimate evil dictators, why not go after Kim Il Jung?

---

I agree; I would actually support a war with him because he starves his people. Something Saddam never did; his people are on Food Aid, yes, but he made sure they were fed.

Quote:

---

Kim Il Jung already has missiles capable of reaching the U.S. and if he doesn't already have nuclear weapons, is expected to have them within a year or two.

---

I read on the BBC website that The UN thinks PRNK will have 6 nuclear warheads by the end of May (in less than 60 days), They will then be able to produce one weapon per month. The hold is the missile they have now is untested.

[dekalog]

if you want a list of 'evil dictators' just go to Amnesty International's website - where you will find, unfortunately that we as the human race have a long way to go

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

Sure, we lack worldwide support, as is evidenced by many of our "friends" bailing when the tough got going and frankly, this is no surprise to me. What matters to me is American opinion and currently, the polls show that 70% plus of the population supports this war and President Bush.

---

Like Diebrock I also have some trouble with this statement (darkmagicwillow already made the other points I could have made, heh). I am Dutch, unlike Germany the Netherlands is one of those 35 or so nations that officially support the US and this war, only after this war had started and only 'politically'. A half hearted position my country took because they are still busy forming a new government with one party opposed and one party in support of this war. The last poll I know of still has a majority of our population opposed to the war, but our democratic government knows better. Support is growing, but I think that is because the war is under way and we haven't been the worse for it yet, so now the preceding fears and worries may be starting to fade a bit.



Countries like Germany have made their feelings clear from the start, they didn't bail when the going got tough, they've stood their ground for their own reasons, which is more than I can say for my own country. Let's be careful about how we talk about each other's country. The fact that Germany does not support this war and the fact that a percentage of the US citizens don't support this war, does not mean they are not real friends. Friends can disagree about major issues and still be friends.



Anyway, my own reasons for being opposed to this war don't matter much right now, others have stated them better than I can. I certainly hope the US will win, and do it quickly because though I may not support the ones who made these decisions, I respect the US soldiers who are putting their lives on the line, so I support them. I have mixed feelings now.

-------------------------


Coffee, Food, Kisses and Gay Love........Get it while you are hot

Edited by: DrG at: 3/25/03 8:54:01 am

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

What matters to me is American opinion and currently, the polls show that 70% plus of the population supports this war and President Bush.

---

I have a problem with this statement because it is an inaccurate misrepresentation of statistics. I know it is inaccurate because we are missing some very key pieces of data.



1) How many people were polled? I can tell you right now that if they didn't poll every single person out of the almost 254 million (or more) in this country, then this statement is false. Like the Yahoo poll keeps screaming that 64% of the Americans support the war but in the little tiny print, you'll see that they actually polled only483 adult Americans. Talk about misleading statistics and blatantly inaccurate polls. I know they didn't poll me so I am pretty sure that this number of 70% of the Americans supporting the war is wrong and propagandist. It's not just this war that polls give unsubstantiated information for. ANY poll that is done usually gives misleading information when they conveniently forget to tell exactly how many people were polled before giving percentages.



There are several other really crucial pieces of data that are needed before taking this 70% number at face value:



2) In what part of the country were they polled?

3) What types of questions were asked?

4) What was the age range of the Americans polled?



The answers to these questions are supremely important in making an accurate determination as to whether or not the poll is actually an unbiased, factual representation of American sentiment for this war. Please let us use logic and common sense before taking ANYTHING that is being said at face value. That could be said for both sides of this argument.



Someone told me the other day that discussing this war with any other American is a futile effort because this is an emotional topic and emotion pushes logic straight out the window when it comes to forming an opinion. To a point I agree since not all Americans resort to emotion when viewing the war. There are many that view this with a clear eye. And when viewing this war as such, one cannot but come to the determination that we are making a serious mistake regardless of what dictator is office.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.

Edited by: Kieli at: 3/25/03 10:29:00 am

[justin]

Personaly I have nothing but respect for those countries who were opposed to the war from the start and who have stuck to their principles.



I just wish that my country was one of them. That's not very likely since at times it seems that if America jumped off a cliff, Britain would be a few steps behind.

I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am

[themagicpixie]

I think the amazing thing about the war is how badly Blair has handled matters at home - whatever you think of the war, I would say, in my opinion, that it should be possible to present a valid case for war against Saddam Hussein - without revealing any "secret information", it could still be done. My Dad and I listened to the MP Frank Field the other day on the radio, and he made a very good case based on the way Saddam treats the Iraqi people, Kurds etc... it was an arguable case at least. But Blair doesn't seem able to get this kind of argument across, as far as I can see, and more worryingly: he doesn't see a need to.



He is convinced he is right, so he takes the UK to war. Perhaps Saddam is an aggressor and we do need to stand up to him, but Blair does not see any need to convince the British people we are doing the right thing. I don't feel reassured. I want to believe in the Prime Minister and have confidence in him, but he acts as if it is his destiny and personal mission to aid the US in getting rid of Saddam.



Politicians always have to make unpopular decisions. Even though they are elected by the majority of the public, they often have to do things that the majority don't agree with - in days gone by this included legalising homosexuality and abolishing capital punishment in the UK - and they do these things for the greater good. Usually they are better at dealing with their public than Tony Blair though, who despite Labour's huge majority has huge trouble convincing anyone in this country of what he is saying, and doesn't seem to consider it at all important that he should endeavour to do so. Fair enough, we are all entitled to our opinions, and maybe he doesn't want to be accused of propaganda - in the UK we can have debate but it still feels like the people's views do not matter. Why couldn't Blair makes us feel we had at least been listened to before he made this decision?

[Shadow ALH]

Kieli--I agree with you on everything you have posted in this thread (including the Hitler comparisons). A few times now I have been preparing replies and then seen that you have beaten me to it. Since you are much more eloquent than I am, I have usually just ended up keeping quiet.



I will add my feelings on the poll thing though. I may not remember a lot from the Statistics class I took, but I do remember that a sample size of 500 out of a country with 254 million is not a good representation. Other questions that need to be asked includes the time of day that people were polled and where they were at the time or what they were doing. I have never been polled. If they had called me I get so many telemarketing calls throughout the day that I probably would have hung up as soons as I heard it was someone I didn't know.



Here is one story I do remember from my Stats class: before the 1980 presidential election the newspaper here on campus polled everyone on their staff about which presidential canidate they were going to vote for. None of them said Regan so they wrote and article entitled "0% of Cal students are going to vote for Regan" or something like that. This was obviously false and I'm sure many Cal students did vote for Regan. It does demonstrate, however, how important the way in which a poll is conducted is to its outcome. The media is very fond of thier polls, but the polls actually tell us nothing, just like so much of the rest of what they are reporting.



I am proud to be an American. I love my country, but I also love the world. I don't think the "American way of life" is better than the way of life in many other countries in the world and our opinion isn't more important either. Since this war does not just effect us, it should not be our decision alone to enter into it.

[justin]

Quote:

---

Even though they are elected by the majority of the public,

---

Actually because of the way the electoral system works a party doesn't need to get majority of the votes to be elected. In fact I think it's been a long time since one did.

Quote:

---

in the UK we can have debate but it still feels like the people's views do not matte

---

This came up a while ago when there were calls for a referendum about the single currency (I think it was about that, I might be wrong) and a lot of people said that that would be unconstitutional because we have a representative system. The meaning being that we elect whichever party we want then up until the next election it's up to them to decide what's best for the country. I.E. they have to give us what we need, rather than what we want

I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am