Bill Sikes wrote: Yet earlier you said:
yes, in the heat of the discussion, i was inconsistent. it happens. i've never claimed i'm perfect (i sure hope nobody finds that i did claim that previously!!)
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
yes, in the heat of the discussion, i was inconsistent. it happens. i've never claimed i'm perfect (i sure hope nobody finds that i did claim that previously!!)
Tis not perfection we seek but a little less imperfection
so perhaps you'll understand why *I* find it irritating when you say things like Britain could have won the war without US help. i think it's highly unlikely, but we'll never know, and you're welcome
Just for the record I never said that I just took umbrage at the sweeping generalisation. The past is always more then black an white
gore won the popular vote, and lost the electoral college vote. the electoral college was created for two reasons: to dampen the potential for the tyranny of the majority, and concommittantly to give those states that have fewer people in them a fairer voice in the election of president.
the debate on the value of the electoral college continues. typically it is most vociferously argued against when the popular vote is trumped by the EC. funnily enough, the other half vociferously argue for it if their candidate lost the popular vote but won the EC vote. fancy that.
American politics- at least at presidential level seems incredibly polarised with no middle ground with the process having been hijacked by those with money and the ordinary voters just seem to get carried along, Can't be ight but that is the impression I have. Plaese tell me I'm wrong.
Thanks to TB we have a constitutional crisis brewing in that we are not supposed to have a prime minister ruling the country, theoretically he is simply first among equals but answerable to parliament for his actions. Yet he's getting away with lying at worst, bullshitting at best. Too large a majority is bad for democracy
Tis not perfection we seek but a little less imperfection
so perhaps you'll understand why *I* find it irritating when you say things like Britain could have won the war without US help. i think it's highly unlikely, but we'll never know, and you're welcome
Just for the record I never said that I just took umbrage at the sweeping generalisation. The past is always more then black an white
gore won the popular vote, and lost the electoral college vote. the electoral college was created for two reasons: to dampen the potential for the tyranny of the majority, and concommittantly to give those states that have fewer people in them a fairer voice in the election of president.
the debate on the value of the electoral college continues. typically it is most vociferously argued against when the popular vote is trumped by the EC. funnily enough, the other half vociferously argue for it if their candidate lost the popular vote but won the EC vote. fancy that.
American politics- at least at presidential level seems incredibly polarised with no middle ground with the process having been hijacked by those with money and the ordinary voters just seem to get carried along, Can't be ight but that is the impression I have. Plaese tell me I'm wrong.
Thanks to TB we have a constitutional crisis brewing in that we are not supposed to have a prime minister ruling the country, theoretically he is simply first among equals but answerable to parliament for his actions. Yet he's getting away with lying at worst, bullshitting at best. Too large a majority is bad for democracy
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0, ... 05,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/stor ... 16,00.html
I've read those. I'm sure that the first one is, from an American point of
view, "very unpatriotic". You wait for the offices of the Grauniad to be
blown up.
So, they really *are* going to be under Yank military command. Oh shi'ite.
That ubggre Hoon did not mention that, as such. Why didn't anyone ask
the flippin' question?
gmc wrote: "Recent intelligence reports have confirmed the existence of Santa at the North Pole"
Stated Tony Blair to the house of Commons. "There can now be little doubt that he has the capacity to drop presents down every chimney in Britain within a single night and an attack is expected on or around the 25th of December.
Quite credible, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that really *was* trotted out.
What the hell *have* we got in charge today?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/stor ... 16,00.html
I've read those. I'm sure that the first one is, from an American point of
view, "very unpatriotic". You wait for the offices of the Grauniad to be
blown up.
So, they really *are* going to be under Yank military command. Oh shi'ite.
That ubggre Hoon did not mention that, as such. Why didn't anyone ask
the flippin' question?
gmc wrote: "Recent intelligence reports have confirmed the existence of Santa at the North Pole"
Stated Tony Blair to the house of Commons. "There can now be little doubt that he has the capacity to drop presents down every chimney in Britain within a single night and an attack is expected on or around the 25th of December.
Quite credible, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that really *was* trotted out.
What the hell *have* we got in charge today?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote: Thanks to TB we have a constitutional crisis brewing in that we are not supposed to have a prime minister ruling the country, theoretically he is simply first among equals but answerable to parliament for his actions. Yet he's getting away with lying at worst, bullshitting at best. Too large a majority is bad for democracy
How did the abstrad get into this position? Do you think that should the
government change at election time that the new lot would take a step
back in this respect? I doubt it myself, I can't see any of these greasy
herberts declining a chanve to the overt c o c k o' the roost....
How did the abstrad get into this position? Do you think that should the
government change at election time that the new lot would take a step
back in this respect? I doubt it myself, I can't see any of these greasy
herberts declining a chanve to the overt c o c k o' the roost....
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
Started with Harold Wilson and cabinet government then gradually as the PM get greater power of patronage the PM accrued more power, maggie thatcher got rid of anyone that disagreed with her or was man enough to stand up to her. TB has just continued and runs the govt like he is the head of an executive appointing his own advisers etc and there is no one with the guts in the labour party to say no apart from the likes of Robin Cook and tony Benn. How about Robin Cook for leader? at least he has some integrity.
It's the assumption that TB can decide who his successor should be that really galls. Personally I hope their majority is vastly reduced sadly the tories are so emasculated (thank you maggie) they no longer form a viable opposition.
That's the other thing the labour leader is now chosen by the parliamentary party who all seem more concerned with staying in power and are terrified of the tories getting back in. While the unions no longer have the clout they did have maybe it's gone too much the oteher way. Our electoral system distorts the results as well neither under the tories or the present labour party have we had a party in power that the majority support, strong leadership is all very well but not when it is unrepresentative. Gerrymandering is not confined to the 20th century personally I've always supported PR.
Churchill had the right idea, when the houses of parliament were rebuilt after the second world war at his insistence it was built with too few seats for all the MP's at once. The idea being that they should be constantly reminded that they did not have an automatic right to sit in the house. That's also why they have to stand up and face the opposition when speaking its deliberately meant to be intimidating facing your political opponents in tiered rows close in front of you.
Watch them on TV, they have all been getting body language coaching, the carefully choreographed open hand gestures make them seem like marionettes. Woodentops rule the world. aaaaargh!
It's the assumption that TB can decide who his successor should be that really galls. Personally I hope their majority is vastly reduced sadly the tories are so emasculated (thank you maggie) they no longer form a viable opposition.
That's the other thing the labour leader is now chosen by the parliamentary party who all seem more concerned with staying in power and are terrified of the tories getting back in. While the unions no longer have the clout they did have maybe it's gone too much the oteher way. Our electoral system distorts the results as well neither under the tories or the present labour party have we had a party in power that the majority support, strong leadership is all very well but not when it is unrepresentative. Gerrymandering is not confined to the 20th century personally I've always supported PR.
Churchill had the right idea, when the houses of parliament were rebuilt after the second world war at his insistence it was built with too few seats for all the MP's at once. The idea being that they should be constantly reminded that they did not have an automatic right to sit in the house. That's also why they have to stand up and face the opposition when speaking its deliberately meant to be intimidating facing your political opponents in tiered rows close in front of you.
Watch them on TV, they have all been getting body language coaching, the carefully choreographed open hand gestures make them seem like marionettes. Woodentops rule the world. aaaaargh!
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
gmc wrote: Churchill had the right idea, when the houses of parliament were rebuilt after the second world war at his insistence it was built with too few seats for all the MP's at once. The idea being that they should be constantly reminded that they did not have an automatic right to sit in the house. That's also why they have to stand up and face the opposition when speaking its deliberately meant to be intimidating facing your political opponents in tiered rows close in front of you.
Have you seen how it works now? There's hardly anyone ever there, unless
there's a *major* event! !f you see anything televised, they've all shuffled up
to make the place look full! We never get a picture of the whole house on the
TV, just speakers in their own area. I saw a little of the shabby Hoon's waffling
last night. As he prepared to speak you could *see* MPs shuffling their hairy
harrises along the benches to "fill the gaps". A camera pointing along the floor
towards the table showed an mp arise, walk along nearer to the government
dispatch box, and sit by it.
gmc wrote: Watch them on TV, they have all been getting body language coaching, the carefully choreographed open hand gestures make them seem like marionettes. Woodentops rule the world. aaaaargh!
Makes me boil up, I'm afraid. Apologies.
Have you seen how it works now? There's hardly anyone ever there, unless
there's a *major* event! !f you see anything televised, they've all shuffled up
to make the place look full! We never get a picture of the whole house on the
TV, just speakers in their own area. I saw a little of the shabby Hoon's waffling
last night. As he prepared to speak you could *see* MPs shuffling their hairy
harrises along the benches to "fill the gaps". A camera pointing along the floor
towards the table showed an mp arise, walk along nearer to the government
dispatch box, and sit by it.
gmc wrote: Watch them on TV, they have all been getting body language coaching, the carefully choreographed open hand gestures make them seem like marionettes. Woodentops rule the world. aaaaargh!
Makes me boil up, I'm afraid. Apologies.
-
LottomagicZ4941
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
I was in support based on a false pretence.
Your argument makes be feel a bit better about us being over there. So I do THANK you for your post:)
However I am experience cognitive disonance over the whole mess.
I don't think they are going to thank us.
I think it is basically tossing pearls unto . . . . Well I hope I am wrong but I don't think it is worth it as we are making more frineds then foes.
So I was for it on a false pretence. Then apposed and am now still apposed but recon some good may come out of it. But not as much good as what we are investing in it.
When I see newspaper stories of men younger then myself who have lost a leg I just can't help but think it is not worth it.
Lotto
http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-local/ ... elcome-344
Magic
Your argument makes be feel a bit better about us being over there. So I do THANK you for your post:)
However I am experience cognitive disonance over the whole mess.
I don't think they are going to thank us.
I think it is basically tossing pearls unto . . . . Well I hope I am wrong but I don't think it is worth it as we are making more frineds then foes.
So I was for it on a false pretence. Then apposed and am now still apposed but recon some good may come out of it. But not as much good as what we are investing in it.
When I see newspaper stories of men younger then myself who have lost a leg I just can't help but think it is not worth it.
Lotto
http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-local/ ... elcome-344
Magic
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Why I've changed opinion on Iraq war.
sarasara wrote: I'm guessing you didn't read any good news from Iraq in your local paper today, so I'll pass on Haider Ajina's translation of an article in today's IRAQI NEWSPAPER "Al Nahrein": And please note that in Iraqi newspapers, the terrorists are called "TERRORISTS," not "INSURGENTS."
it is interesting how the popular press *will not* refer to the terrorists in iraq as terrorists, but as the otherwise far more subdued 'insurgents'.
gee, folks who go around kidnapping innocent people, beheading them, blowing themselves up, assassinating iraqi police - 'terrorist' sounds right to me.
it is interesting how the popular press *will not* refer to the terrorists in iraq as terrorists, but as the otherwise far more subdued 'insurgents'.
gee, folks who go around kidnapping innocent people, beheading them, blowing themselves up, assassinating iraqi police - 'terrorist' sounds right to me.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]