Bye, bye Blair

I was half expecting him to pronounce himself president for life.

As we enter the 'deep analysis' stage of the Blair years I come back to my over-riding feeling - I am just so glad that he's going. I feel almost as strongly about it as I did about Thatcher's - and I've been a member of the Labour Party since 1973. I even stood for Parliament in 1979. So for me to feel like that about a Labour Prime Minister is pretty shameful.

His major error was Iraq. We marched against it. We told him loud and clear and his stupid, Christian sense of godliness told him to go against us. He was clearly totally and utterly wrong. I will never forgive him for that.

Before then he had simply annoyed me. He wasted much of the first five years when he could have made a real difference. OK - he brought in the minimum wage and the Freedom of Information Act, he signed up to the European Bill of Human Rights and he did spend loads more (however misguidedly) on health and education. He has tried to put Africa on the front of the agenda and he has, very reluctantly, picked up climate change as an issue. But it isn't from the heart and you shouldn't be able to say that about any Labour politician. I distrust him, I hate what he's done to my party, I loathe much of his foreign policy, I abhor his introduction of PFI into our institutions (for which we will pay for another 75 years) and I think he has gone pretty much stark staring mad in the last couple of years.

Overall - a great opportunity lost. Score 3/10.

But I won't dance on his grave. I will reserve that pleasure for Thatcher.

Yes couldn't agree more TC. I feel terribly let down but the old maxim just seems ever more true. 'Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.' Does ANYONE think that Brown is going to be any better?

While I reserve the right to feel even more disappointed that my country twice elected that idiot Bush into office, my overriding feeling about Blair is one of disappointment. I had such high hopes for him, but he veered way off course some time ago.

I really think it's time that Britain introduced proportional representation, instead of the ludicrous system you have in place now, which has proven disastrous for Labour. You need to be able to vote for an individual on individual merits.

It's definitely time for PR!

I've lost the ability to have "high hopes" for any politician. Anarchy is the way to go!

That said, Blair did give temp workers paid holidays...

pe
ps
oid

... What is "The Art of Tea"? ...
(www.pepsoid.wordpress.com)

Hey! Lay off the guy. He gave us all a good day back in 1997. :)

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

Simon Jenkins had some interesting things to say Re PR this week.

Coalition, the natural consequence of PR, removes the outcome of an election from the hustings to the private deal of corridors, cabals and careerism.

It's worth a read, plus he's very mean to the Lib-Dems, which is always fun.

I have to say, I think the alternatives would have been worse. William Hague? Michael Howard? Good grief!
We did get the minimim wage, which is good, and childcare tax breaks. My main disappointment is the promise to put all the freight back on the railway, which has been quietly forgotten since 1997.

I hope that Michael Meacher enters the leadership contest. It would be interesting to have - however briefly - a prime minister who appears to have a genuine concern for the environment.

I'm agnostic on PR in terms of fairness and pluralism but I definitely don't think that it necessarily leads to better governments.

As TC suggests, I think Blair's been a mixed bag.

Iraq aside, I don't know whether he's done many major bad things that anyone else - out of the people who realistically could've been elected in Britain - wouldn't have done too.

Two news criticisms that I've seen are: (a) NHS+civil service money has been squandered largely on bureaucracy. (b) Iraq War.

Because I don't know how a laberynthine megalith such as the NHS, or civil service, ought to be run I can't say whether or not that's true. But if I notice that city fat cats increase their pay, as do MPs, I'd guess that any committe, quango, cabal, or group will seek to serve its own interests & bloat. I guess fighting public sector workers simply isn't in the nature of a leftish party!

The Iraq War. Now that was truly a moronic abomination.

So, though I don't really like Blair. He smiles too much while stabbing people, whereas at least Alastair Campbell and John Prescott have the decency to get in fights on TV where we can see it! I'd still be inclined to give him a more generous score.

6 1/2 out of 10

My webpage is at:
http://www.bookscape.co.uk

He started off alright. Besides, did anyone really expect anything different? BTW, has anyone noticed that everything became italicized?

"BTW, has anyone noticed that everything became italicized?"

I blame Blair for that and all

Brown's opening salvoes appear good. I like the eco towns thing.

Oddly enough I have some hopes of Brown. He comes from the same political stock as John Smith - and he surprised me immensely in the short time he had as party leader. I think there may be something rather good in Mr Brown - but he has to give up this fixation with PFI.

Like many other young (ish) people living in rented accomodation, the single most important issue is the housing crisis.

From the Brighton Newspaper, 'Gordon Brown acknowledged first-time buyers' frustration at soaring house prices - and said he wanted to build more affordable homes.'

and I agree wholeheartedly with comments like this.

"Does Gordon Brown think we're all stupid? The way he talks about this suddenly being an issue now, you would think he'd had nothing to do with Government policy for the last ten years! The Government has had ten years to make it easier for councils to build affordable housing and has done nothing, basically because it has suited the Government to have rising house prices (due to restricted housing stock supply) in order to fuel a 'feel-good factor' amongst the Nation's voters. Get real Gordon: we already know that you're part of the problem rather than part of the solution!"

Within 5 years time I will have enough money saved to buy a 2 bed flat (thanks to the fact I still have money from the flat I sold some years ago and currently have an extrememly low expenditure and earn around the average wage)even if the situation remains as it is (and the predictions are it will worsen with a 1 million home defecit in London and the SE in the next 20 years)

If it is hard- ish for me, then a family with only one wage earner, paying South Eastern rent have a snowball's chace in hell.

And people like me are delaying having a family because we have no room. If people delay having children, who will support an ever increasing generation of pensioners? Immigration will then become even more necessary. Although that isn't a bad thing, I don't think we should rely on the fact there will always be a 'brain gain' from places like Poland.

I would like to see more brownfield sites than are currently proposed redeveloped (at a rate to ease the shortage) so all prices drop so that I can have a four bedrooom cottage in Oxted.

Interesting news last week that Westminster, a true blue Tory council, is about to become the first council in London (possibly the country) to build new council houses for over 10 years.

People of various political persuasions are recognising we have a problem.

I'm dubious as to whether it's economic possibility to have a situation where everyone owns a home worth owning.

We used to have affordable housing for people who could aspire to ownership, on the basis that a huge percentage of the population could never aspire to ownership.

I think the government policy that each local Authority should deal with its own housing independently, is insane on a small Island like ours. I think there should be one central housing list. Unless a person has a job in London there is no reason why they shouldn't be housed in parts of the North where councils are set to bulldoze some 6000 homes because no-one wants to live there. It may not be so desirable to move away from family and friends but to be blunt, IMO, 'beggars can't be choosers'.

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

I remember the days when you were a Tory, Jude.

Central-planning - to the extent of one big list - in housing would be an almost Soviet step. Not too bad in theory but I can guess some of the things that would happen in practice.

There a quite a few London councils who are attempting to shift socially housed people off their lists and up to the Midlands and North.

Haringey Council was recently offering people fat wads of cash to relocate to Stoke.

Not sure about this in a general sense, though:
"Unless a person has a job in London there is no reason why they shouldn't be housed in parts of the North"

The residents of some areas of the North might have something to say about thousands of unemployed people being dumped next door to compete for the limited number of jobs available.

They might have even more to say if the people were being moved were people with no prospect of gaining work, ever, who would just be a big drain on their already over-stretched local public services.

One way round this is artificial economic growth in poorer areas, which would be almost entirely driven by huge government spending on public projects and otherwise unviable businesses.

That's what Labour did in the old days.

I still support it but I don't Gordon Brown does.

Brent, Haringey, Islington, Hackney, Wandsworth, Lambeth and Lewisham are amongst those considered Britain's worst council estates, just to put a comment or two into perspective. ;)

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

I was a tory because they were traditionally the most economically right party and I used to thoroughly believe that society should be a meritocracy. I abandoned affiliation because since the Thatcher era, the two main parties have moved so closely together, I can't see any real discernible difference between the two.

Also, I have begun to understand that not all 'poor' people are idle scroungers. I guess I began to see the inherent value of my own drive to suceed, love of study, academic ability and so on and began to understand them as 'gifts' or 'advantages' rather than something I 'earned'. Another turning point was mixing with and acquiring friends who are dependent on the welfare state and realising that their shameless acceptance of this is unfortunate inherited thinking rather than malice against the hardworking tax-payer.

I also have many friends with multiple mental health, family, emotional and addiction problems. My buzz word as a hardline pro capitalist was 'choice'. I realise now that escaping poverty is a choice but a hard one requiring, skills, stamina and opportunity beyond just a free education.

I still have right leaning thinking, I still think the welfare state needs reform, I still think the affluent pay far too much tax, but understand that the bounderies are blurred, it isn't as black and white as I once thought.

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

Does this prove that right-wingism is just a phase you grow out of???

I think any extreme view is one you grow out of! I think experience enables you to see multiple points of view. It works the other way. Think of all the hippies and rabid socialists who eventually get a haircut and become insurance salesmen.

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

"I still have right leaning thinking, I still think the welfare state needs reform, I still think the affluent pay far too much tax, but understand that the bounderies are blurred, it isn't as black and white as I once thought."

Well, the affluent proportionately pay less tax than the poor.

They obviously pay a higher marginal rate of income tax but because we have such high taxes on consumption - and poorer people generally have to spend all their money buying stuff - the poor get screwed most ways.

This is not just a government policy - banks, public transport, metered electricity - in all cases, if you're not poor enough to avoid paying all together, services are more expensive the poorer you are.

Well, the affluent proportionately pay less tax than the poor.

I still don't see the logic... the affluent consume the same or less public services so why pay more.

I will never understand socialism I think!

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

didn't really make myself clear really. Its the whole proportionate thing I don't understand. Imagine going in to a hi fi shop and asking for the price on a plasma TV. Well that depends on how much money you have. We need £1500 per telly to pay for the goods, the overheads and staffing etc. Since you are well-off and earn lots of money, you can afford to pay £3000. Poor Jim here didn't have parents who encouraged him to read and he didn't have many opportunities and is caught in a trap of addiction so we'll give him the telly for 99p, we use the extra £1500 we creamed from you to pay for it?

Bonkers!

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

It's called an equitable redistribution of wealth PJ.

it's crap

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

... and if you are just going to apply Robin Hood politics to tax succesful people to death, it would reduce their drive thus having a detrimental effect on the economy. If everyone ended up with the same - why would anyone bother to work hard? My sister for a practical example says that since she is now in the 40% tax bracket, the increase in take-home pay for the next promotional level isn't worth the extra responsibilities and effort. So she isn't applying for it.

jude

So greed is good?

I think greed is part of human nature. All animals compete for resources.

I have mellowed in my old age. I used to be almost a complete free market anarchist opposing all taxation other than that required to keep the peace and maintain essential infrastructure.

Now, I realise that to have a true meritocracy, people have to have access to good education and healthcare and so on.

I think it is in the interests of all society to have basic healthcare and education for all. But one of the problems I have is the mentality of people who treat the welfare state as a right. Things like the choice based letting scheme, where council lists are operated like estate agents only re-enforce these people's beliefs that it is their right to have a house which may be the same as the one next door which someone else has slogged their guts out for. They need to understand it is an act of charity to them.

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

So we should grovel?

"Its the whole proportionate thing I don't understand. Imagine going in to a hi fi shop and asking for the price on a plasma TV. Well that depends on how much money you have. We need £1500 per telly to pay for the goods, the overheads and staffing etc. Since you are well-off and earn lots of money, you can afford to pay £3000."

Yes, that would clearly be insane and that's not what I'm suggesting.

The point is that poorer people spend more of their income on buying stuff, while richer people don't.

Poor people have a higher proportion of their income taken off them by the government as a punishment for putting it straight back into the economy.

Most things we buy are subjected to 17.5% VAT, which is a very high regressive tax - everyone pays the same amount.

Cigarettes and alcohol are subjected to very high regressive taxes.

The lottery - depended on which way you look at it - is either subjected to a regressive tax or just is a regressive tax.

The TV licence is a regressive tax.

People who have enough spare cash to save money or put into to propert or investment funds get a much, much better deal out of the tax system than people who have to spend everything they've got in the course of their everyday lives.

Accidentally posted twice.

"Oh" said Dr. Johnson, with a laugh "The lottery is a tax on the daft!"

Hmm - verdict. Well it’s a hell of a fall from the elation I felt when he first got in, to the horrified incredulity I felt watching him pave our way into the Iraq war.

What’s always bugged me is that, had Labour been in opposition at the time, ‘doing what he thought was right’ would’ve meant him leading the Labour Party in a vote against the invasion of Iraq. No question.

Imo, it was the size of Blair’s recently supersized ego rather than the depth of any personal convictions that got us into this mess. Unforgivable.

I rather like the French second ballot system.

~
www.fabulousmother.com

"I think greed is part of human nature. All animals compete for resources."

Reverting to 'that old chestnut' - when it suits!

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

It goes some way as an explanation but not an excuse. I don't try and excuse greed or rather, a desire for comfort and security. I am saying it exists and therefore a workable model of society surely has to take into account that people are motivated when they can have the rewards of their own efforts?

I AM open to change. I am often pleased when I discover I am wrong. Take medical care. I used to believe that total privatisation with a safety net of very basic care for those who can't afford it would be a fairer and more efficient system. However I changed my mind and I realise that a public health system is best for society as a whole. Actually it was a rather casual conversation with our Justyn T that helped sway me. He gave a very intelligent critique of all the models and explained the problems inherent in the American model of healthcare.

I am still waiting to hear a similarly convincing argument for socialism. David makes a good case and I see the validity of his point about the regressive tax and that the poor pay more as a proportion of their income. However, it is the 'as a proportion of' bit I struggle with.

People used to say I would feel differently if I became disabled and therefore had to quit my job and ended up living on a heart sink council estate. Well all those things happened and I still feel the same. Okay, the lifts break and the ceiling leaks and we have mice - but I don't mind. I have a huge amount of gratitude that I have been housed at all. That's a gift, not my right and I damp-proofed and papered and painted the walls and killed the mice (well two of the little blighters so far!) and am working hard so that I can move on.

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

"I am still waiting to hear a similarly convincing argument for socialism. David makes a good case and I see the validity of his point about the regressive tax and that the poor pay more as a proportion of their income. However, it is the 'as a proportion of' bit I struggle with."

The 'proportion' argument isn't exactly socialism.

There's a good right-wing case against the unfairness of our current tax system towards the poor.

Basically that the more money you put in the hands of people who spend all their money, the more money gets pumped into the economy, which is good for economic growth.

"If everyone ended up with the same - why would anyone bother to work hard?"

This is, in a nutshell, what rampant supporters of capitalism argue, isn't it? Not suggesting you are one, Jude.

But it's not as if the only alternatives are the current situation, or everyone gets the same no matter what. If what we care about is people getting rewarded for working harder, then why don't we actually reward people in proportion to how hard they work? This sure as heck isn't how capitalism operates. The big winners at the moment are those who are prepared to work moderately hard in the short term specifically towards the goal of amassing lots of cash, so that they can kick back and slack off as soon as possible. Some of the biggest losers are those who are prepared to work bloody hard their entire life but never show any particular ambition or inclination towards furthering their own status.

Sure, there are scroungers who expect and take advantage of a welfare state. But then there are people like a certain chap I've seen in court recently, who has managed to pay himself £350k a year out of an insolvent company and who has been taken to court by the Inland Revenue, whom he owes millions, and who is paying for his defence using Legal Aid, and who will almost certainly not pay any of what he is ordered to pay on the basis that he cannot afford it.

There are greedy, lazy people who are rich and there are greedy, lazy people who are poor - people who use their energies and intelligence solely for the purpose of getting as much as they can for as little effort as possible. I'd say there's little or no correlation between how wealthy you are and how prepared you are to work. But who's doing the greater damage to society - someone who scrounges a paltry £10k of benefits, or someone who makes sure they jump through every loophole going to give away as little of their dragon's hoard as possible?

"Basically that the more money you put in the hands of people who spend all their money, the more money gets pumped into the economy, which is good for economic growth."

That's great. Gimme your money!

Hear me croon at: www.myspace.com/shavedbybuddha

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, we'll find peace. - Jimi Hendrix

tcook said: "His major error was Iraq. We marched against it. We told him loud and clear and his stupid, Christian sense of godliness told him to go against us. He was clearly totally and utterly wrong. I will never forgive him for that."

(And thank God he did. We should thank God every night that Blair and Bush cared enough about the helpless people of Iraq to go against the so-called "popular opinion" and just do what was right. If it was left up to people who argue against them, Hitler would be in charge of Europe today. God bless Blair - God bless Bush.)

styxbroox says: "I feel terribly let down but the old maxim just seems ever more true. 'Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.'"

(You feel terribly let down? Wow! Someone on this site told me that the UK is largely secular - they failed to say that they no longer care about people other than themselves. I'm sorry, styxbroox, but you can no longer feel happy about people being lowered alive and feet-first into tree shredders in front of their own family members. You can no long feel happy about women being raped and humiliated in public by that dictator's two sons. But don't worry, some where, some time, more people will be brutalized by some dictator that you can support while you trash your own elected "stupid Christian" (as tcook put it) leaders at home as they attempt to come to the aid of those helpless people.)

"I'm sorry, styxbroox, but you can no longer feel happy about people being lowered alive and feet-first into tree shredders in front of their own family members."

So are you saying you are happy about the 600,000+ Iraqis who've been killed since the invasion?

The question isn't whether Saddam Hussein was a nice man - no one's disputing that he was an evil dictator - the question is whether the consequences of the war on Iraq have been better or worse than if we hadn't gone to war.

It's not a good against evil issue, precisely because both options - leaving Saddam in power or taking him out and ending up where we are now - were bad.

The question is which one was worse.

First of all, your numbers are terribly skewed. It is clear that you have fallen for the leftist's propaganda and lies.

"It's not a good against evil issue, precisely because both options - leaving Saddam in power or taking him out and ending up where we are now - were bad."

Only evil can say that. If it were not of evil men like Saddam Hussein, there would be no need for such rescues. But you want to blame the rescuers instead of the terrorists. You want to just allow the evil men of this world to just have free reign - do nothing and call that better.

It is unfortunate indeed, that good people have to die in order to fight evil in this world. France pretty much laid down to Nazi Germany. Now you would have England lay down to the radical Moslems.

I remember how you despise the Christian religions of the world; evidently you are far more tolerant of radical Moslem's.

Once someone said in America, "Give me liberty or give me death." Evidently you don't believe anything is worth dying for. Those people wanted us to free them. They asked us to help years ago when W's father was president. But people like you prohibited it. Now, they welcome our help.

It took the U.S. fourteen years to establish a very shaky Republic. Now "the people" seem to want Iraq, while in the midst of continual terrorist attack to form there democracy in just a couple of years. Both England and America lost hundreds of thousands fighting in WWII. America's civil war cost us over 600,000 men and women. You quoted that many in this war. Lies. It hasn't even been 6,000. Or at least not much more. You have no real argument that will leave you above the appearance of being a coward and a traitor to your own British troops and a Godless person who does not care for the helpless and the innocent people. So, you create numbers, manufacture lies and cling to the lies of those who hate freedom and demorcracy and who are fear mongers and traitors to the cause of righteous men everywhere.

You are a coward and just too dishonest to admit it. You hate this war, not because of our dead or the death of the innocent - or you would mention the dead of the innocent and our warriors. To come to such grand numbers, you can only be referring to the death of the enemy (which are much, much, much larger than ours - but do not get mentioned in the press). So it appears to be the enemy, those who purposely kill women and children and the elderly, that you are wanting to save, that you are morning for.

Much better to kill the Christians. Be honest - that is the real reason you hate Blair and Bush - isn't it. You would rather that the whole world fall to terrorists and dictators than to have a Christian leader lead you into war against them. It really isn't Blair that you hate. It isn't Bush, terrorists, or dictatorship - it's Christianity. Jesus. God. But both Bush and Blair voiced a belief in the Christian God, so you hate them and stand against anything they try to do to make the world better, because if they succeed, you are afraid that people will see it as a Godly victory.

Well, get used to it because He will be victorious in the end. You can be sure of that. And you WILL bow to Him.

“To come to such grand numbers, you can only be referring to the death of the enemy (which are much, much, much larger than ours - but do not get mentioned in the press).”

Sorry? So when people are disappeared by the bus load and bombs explode in Iraqi markets and cafes, it's the enemy who are being killed? So are the majority of people in Iraq insurgents from other countries now? Or in your comaparison, by ‘ours’ were you solely referring to the deaths of British and American troops versus insurgents.

I believe that when Buk said,

“the question is whether the consequences of the war on Iraq have been better or worse than if we hadn't gone to war.”

he was including every innocent victim – christian or muslim – when weighing up the consequences of the invasion. Seems a fair point to me. I expect Jesus would've approved of that concern.

“So it appears to be the enemy, those who purposely kill women and children and the elderly, that you are wanting to save, that you are morning for.”

Oh I give up.

~
www.fabulousmother.com

"Well, get used to it because He will be victorious in the end. You can be sure of that. And you WILL bow to Him."

Blimey.

How about this: I won't bow to YOUR god nor allah nor bhudda nor the bloody tooth fairy. It's all the same to me.

You seem to imply America's victory is God's victory. Is that what you're saying? Like a football game? God supports America? Arent't the state and religion split in the US? Anyway, God didn't do much for those people in the buildings that got flown into. Nor did he do much when Katrina hit... he doesn't have much control over weather does he? Doesn't care much about American troops either, at least, not the ones going home in a box.

"America's civil war cost us over 600,000 men and women". Out of curiosity, who's side was God on during that war?

Listen: I abhor regimes that oppress women, young people, old people, black people, white people, whatever. I don't think anyone should be able to run around killing innocent people, like the terrorists do. And for that reason I abhor the behaviour of people who share your views. Other self-richeous pseudo-religious (yes, PSEUDO religious) people with those ideas include suicide bombers and meglomaniacs and haters of true liberty and true freedoms.

Anger in the name of God is the most cowardly anger there is. At least take responsibility for your hatred of these people. Be a man, for God's sake.

Enzo, In this particular instance getting your knickers in a twist is a pointless piece of energy expenditure. Your knicker-knotting-calorific-count would best be put to use elsewhere.

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

The estimate for deaths in Iraq since the end of the war is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm

Of course we don't know exactly how many people have died in total but George W Bush himself says, it's a lot and far too many.

"But both Bush and Blair voiced a belief in the Christian God, so you hate them and stand against anything they try to do to make the world better, because if they succeed, you are afraid that people will see it as a Godly victory."

I don't hate either Blair or Bush. I disagree with their decision to invade Iraq.

There were plenty of Christians with me on the anti-war marches and the war was opposed by the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and many church leaders in the US.

If I wanted to be in opposition to Christians just for the sake of it, I would've supported the war.

2Luo says: My comments (added)
Sorry? So when people are disappeared by the bus load and bombs explode in Iraqi markets and cafes, it's the enemy who are being killed? (If the cowards wouldn’t hide behind the innocent and fought like brave men, none of this would occur. Why do you always want to argue the case of the terrorists? If we did nothing, a whole lot more buses, nightclubs and marketplaces full of innocent people would die at the hand of the terrorists. You seem to be saying that we are causing the death of innocent people on purpose. You don’t seem to understand that it is the terrorists that target the innocent. But you just give them a pass. You don’t consider that war has always had a certain amount collateral damage. We try very hard not to kill the innocent. But we have to fight the enemy. But they hide behind the innocent and then you blame us instead of the cowards that are hiding behind them. They know you will do that, so they do it to try to have us kill the innocent. And you fall for it. Fools!) So are the majority of people in Iraq insurgents (I don’t like the word ‘insurgents’. It a convinient word to use to avoid calling them what they really are – COWARDLY TERRORISTS.) from other countries now? Or in your comaparison, by ‘ours’ were you solely referring to the deaths of British and American troops versus insurgents. (What?)
It truly does hack me off, to hear this kind of talk. I’m really sick of it. What do you think we should do, just let the terrorists have their way? Let them kill as many women and children as they care to? It irks me that you can defend them this way.

First, you said (your ilk said) we should talk to them. So we talked to them – not once – but 14 times through the UN. Then you said set sanctions on them. We did that too. Now what? Well, we (Bush and Blair) decided that they could not stand by and do nothing as innocent people were being slaughtered. However, you say, it seems, “No, no, we must allow Saddam Hussein to continue to kill these people. Don’t you dare do anything to stop him. Don’t you dare try to stop him from paying $25,000 to parents who want to strap bombs to their own children and target innocent Israeli women and children. If you do, we will march in the street for the rights of the terrorists. We will protest against the innocent that die from collateral damage that the poor terrorists have to hide behind in order to keep fighting for their worthy cause.” Yes this makes me mad. Anyone who argues for the cause of the enemy as you do, in my opinion is a traitor. And traitors tick me off. Now that the terrorist are importing from other middle eastern nations, you cry and whine that we should run away. “Who cares if ‘those people’ ‘over there’ get the chance to enjoy freedom and democracy? Forget them,” you say. “ Let them all parish under the attack of the terrorists. Get rid of Blair and Bush – we don’t like those Christians anyway.”

It is plain to see that you are not Christian even without your blatant attacks on them. I always believed that every person had a soul – I’m beginning to wonder.

There were plenty of Christians with me on the anti-war marches (No there weren't. I don't know what you call plenty, but if that could happen, it could only happen in England.) and the war was opposed by the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and many church leaders in the US. (I don't care what they think. Don't talk to me about the Pope or any Bishop or Archbishop. I am not impressed. I am not a catholic. I do not follow the dictates of "The Church". I am too much of a Christian for that silliness. I follow the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – not the Pope.)

I just found out that TCook is "management" on this site. OH, Boy - nobody tells me anything. And here I am, ticking him off. Ha - I took an early retirement but I'm still ticking off management. LOL WILL IT NEVER END!!!!!!!

Styx said: "So greed is good?"

I don't agree with the label "greed". Attaching a negative label to an argument is clever, but not always a true comparative. I don’t think that a person who works hard, manages his money well and strives to get ahead is being greedy.

Okaaay

I’ll speak very slowly.

Paul, you are a little confused, I think, about what is being discussed as you are lumping all sorts of disparate issues in together.

First there was Saddam Hussain. Ruthless, evil, sadistic dictator whose regime killed and tortured many. (I am a long time member and fund raiser for the Medical Foundation which treats those who have survived torture by countless regimes around the world. The stories issuing from Iraq were often amongst the most harrowing, but there are plenty other countries doing similar things.)

Then there are the terrorists.
(I take it when you refer to terrorists you mean fundamental muslim suicide bombers intent on the violent destruction of western ideals etc.)

Saddam Hussain had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11, nor was he sponsoring Palestinian attacks on Israel. In fact, he ran what was a predominantly secular state – nothing to do with fundamental Islam. The likes of Afghanistan, Syria or Pakistan would have been the more obvious targets had targeting the real source of terrorists been the objective.

Then there are the casualties.

Firstly there was the suffering and death inflicted by Saddam on anyone who threatened him, with the rest of the country no doubt living in abject fear of him whilst suffering the harmful effects of sanctions. A very bad situation.

With the overthrow of Saddam, the threat of death or torture by his hand was removed. Great.

However, in it’s place – due in my opinion, to a hasty ill-thought out invasion with no real understanding of the country or constructive plan for it’s aftermath – we have *another* bad situation.

You can’t just get rid of a dictator from the outside in, without there being a strong, popular, organised resistance on the inside willing and able to take power immediately. There was no such organisation and so there was an inevitable power vacuum.

First this led to general lawlessness – a quite terrifying state of affairs for anybody living in it. Now the country has degenerated into virtual civil war, exacerbated by ‘insurgents’ from neighbouring countries hell bent on scuppering any hopes of a transition to a US friendly democracy.

Paul, at no point did I state that the allied troops were responsible for the bombs and disappearances, however neither was Saddam Hussain. These casualties are being caused by ‘terrorists’ or ‘insurgents’ as a consequence *of* the invasion.

I am not saying that innocents are being killed by us because terrorists are hiding behind them, I’m saying that the *terrorists* are killing the innocent and I do not give them a pass. I’m simply saying that their motivation and opportunity to do so, is a consequence *of* the invasion. It wasn’t happening before – it is now. It’s that simple. Take two dire situations, before and after, and compare them – which is the lesser of two evils?
~

www.fabulousmother.com

No one has mentioned oil: or the fact that we the west helped Saddam Hussain seize control; oh the irony.

"There were plenty of Christians with me on the anti-war marches (No there weren't. I don't know what you call plenty, but if that could happen, it could only happen in England.)"

Christians have been a key part of peace movements across the world for hundreds of years.

"(I don't care what they think. Don't talk to me about the Pope or any Bishop or Archbishop. I am not impressed. I am not a catholic. I do not follow the dictates of "The Church". I am too much of a Christian for that silliness. I follow the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – not the Pope.)"

I'm not especially impressed by Church leaders myself - although I'm sure many of them are nice people - but I think they're probably Christians.

"I don't agree with the label "greed"."

Yes, because people who put their love of money before other people's health and lives are just hard workers. People who work hard but don't have the right cut-throat attitude - well, they deserve all they get, right?

It's funny that you accuse other people of swallowing propoganda while your views are, somewhat mysteriously, utterly in line with what you government wants everyone to think.

Thanks 2LOU for speaking slowly (writing actually). But your wrong - just dead wrong. Saddam Hussain, did pay $25,000 to the parents of suicied bombers.

Yeah - we've got some real problems over there. It wasn't because we did the wrong thing though. We made some mistakes - there is no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have gone in, and that we should leave now. We should have done things differently. We should now do those things and hopefully we are. But to leave now would be wrong - just wrong. This is my opinion - I hope I didn't write to fast.

Take two dire situations, before and after, and compare them – which is the lesser of two evils?

That is far to subjective. If the question is right or wrong - I say we were and are right to go in there. You may not have the stomache for it - but it was right. Me must try to fight evil and free people from it if they want to be - It is that simple to me.

Christians have been a key part of peace movements across the world for hundreds of years.

Oh get off it.

Jack Wade said: "Yes, because people who put their love of money before other people's health and lives are just hard workers. People who work hard but don't have the right cut-throat attitude - well, they deserve all they get, right?"

I don't think that at all. I agree with you if you frame it that way. That is not how it was framed initially. People who put their love of money first is a whole different subject. The latter bit of your little ditty though does bring to mind that the poor probably isn't quite as able to help as are those with money. Christians believe in charity. It used to be, in the US that it was only the Christians who were organizing charities. Too bad the government got involved isn't it. Secular just isn't very good at it.

"You are a coward and just too dishonest to admit it. You hate this war, not because of our dead or the death of the innocent - or you would mention the dead of the innocent and our warriors. To come to such grand numbers, you can only be referring to the death of the enemy (which are much, much, much larger than ours - but do not get mentioned in the press). So it appears to be the enemy, those who purposely kill women and children and the elderly, that you are wanting to save, that you are morning for.

Much better to kill the Christians. Be honest - that is the real reason you hate Blair and Bush - isn't it. You would rather that the whole world fall to terrorists and dictators than to have a Christian leader lead you into war against them. It really isn't Blair that you hate. It isn't Bush, terrorists, or dictatorship - it's Christianity. Jesus. God. But both Bush and Blair voiced a belief in the Christian God, so you hate them and stand against anything they try to do to make the world better, because if they succeed, you are afraid that people will see it as a Godly victory.

Well, get used to it because He will be victorious in the end. You can be sure of that. And you WILL bow to Him."

Paul, that was an absolutely disgraceful attack on buk unworthy of anyone who calls himself a christian. Most people have responded to your posts with cogent argument which you might not agree with and you respond with personal insult. And Tony Cook's not some little fascist pastor who'll chuck you out of his church if he detects a wrong doctrine, he's used to taking flak and the mere fact that you're here shows it's not just a lefty talking shop.

"Paul, that was an absolutely disgraceful attack on buk unworthy of anyone who calls himself a christian."

Well, it certainly seemed slightly misdirected.

Plu Ca Change and all that. My scientist friend who's head explodes when I say that: but we're still fucking around in Arabia and what has changed?

Paul, that was an absolutely disgraceful attack on buk unworthy of anyone who calls himself a christian.

(Nonsense. I can get angry too. Certain things do tick me off. I don't care a wit if you didn't like my comments. Those who answer my posts don't seem to care about their attacks on me, and neither do I, and - I might add - I don't see you objecting then either. I don’t have to conform to your idea of what a Christian is. I am what I am and I don’t have to wimp out to anyone. B.S. is B.S. and I can call it that if I want. What would you know about what is worthy of a Christian anyway? God tells us how to act and you have no idea how that is. So stick it in your ear, as they say. lol)

How about this: I won't bow to YOUR god nor allah nor bhudda nor the bloody tooth fairy. It's all the same to me. (Yes you will - remember who told you so.)

How about not bowing to any god Paul?

But you will. How about that?

Here is an example of what I mean by this kind of thinking:

ENZO from an earlier post: Listen: I abhor regimes that oppress women, young people, old people, black people, white people, whatever. I don't think anyone should be able to run around killing innocent people, like the terrorists do. And for that reason I abhor the behaviour of people who share your views. Other self-richeous pseudo-religious (yes, PSEUDO religious) people with those ideas include suicide bombers and meglomaniacs and haters of true liberty and true freedoms.

Me: Enzo is, in this statement, essentially saying that Christians are as bad as those terrorists who "...run around killing innocent people..." - who "oppress women, young people, old people, black people, white people, whatever."

He said that it is because of THIS REASON he abhors people who share my views. Now how can any of you say that this is rational thinking?

Is there any amoung you who would side with me on this, or will I get nothing but those who agree with Enzo - that Christians that think like me, are as bad as... well, you can read.

I'll be sure to let you know

"Me: Enzo is, in this statement, essentially saying that Christians are as bad as those terrorists who "...run around killing innocent people..." - who "oppress women, young people, old people, black people, white people, whatever.""

I wasn't going to post on this thread anymore, but I wanted to be clear on this: Anyone who bothered to read what I wrote properly will have realised that in no way was I suggesting the above.

I went out of my way to separate Paul's views from Christian views. I'll repeat myself: I referred to his views as PSEUDO RELIGIOUS (twice) by which I meant he is not a proper Christian.

I was NOT saying ("essentially" or otherwise) that "Christians are as bad as" anyone. Or as good. Or anything of the sort.

One more time for you: I wasn't talking about Christians at all in that quote, I was expressing a view about PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

Hope that's clear, sweetheart.

Ben..

PoetJude, how about moving up north? I don't know how much you've got away but you can get an ever so slightly unloved three bed terrace up here for around 70 000. I moved from London to the West Mids- I talk from experience.

Also, sorry to break up the serious discussion.

It wasn't that serious.

I have considered it Ursula but my job keeps me in the capital and I am not quite ready to forsake it! My plan is to keep the apartment in London (I'll be moved to new housing association property when our council estate is demolished in 2 years) and buy a second home in East Anglia.

My best friend from school has a gorgeous old terrace in Thorpe Hessley near Rotherham which cost far less than a studio box down here. I do get a little green!

jude

"Cacoethes scribendi"
http://www.judesworld.net

"But you will. How about that?"

How about this: none of us will *willingly*. Why would we bow down before the kind of tyrannical, murderous superbeing who shares your views? He'll have to force us to, by threat of death or torture. Which I guess makes him kinda like Saddam Hussein, eh?

You aren't a Christian, Paul. You have nothing to do with the Christian god. You're the herald to some kind of omnipotent despot of your own imagining.

"What would you know about what is worthy of a Christian anyway"

More than you, evidently. You said: "We must try to fight evil and free people from it if they want to be - It is that simple to me"

Then we'll fight the evil that you represent and try to free people from *that*. How about it?

And they will call the truth a lie and a lie the truth.

You've no idea when this bowing down is going to happen do you Paul? Only I'd rather not mess up my decent trousers.

Walking past a cathedral once, a friend remarked that if God existed, he must have one hell of an ego – first he makes everyone in his own image then he demands constant praise and hanging off his every word – and now with the bowing down. You’d think being omnipresent would be enough to satisfy most deities...

~
www.fabulousmother.com

Yes, Jesus said 'the Kingdom of God is within you'. Note, he didn't say the Bible, or a church. Or Poughkeepsie, for that matter...

Funny, I could've sworn Poughkeepsie was somewhere near my liver...

'Scuse me, has anyone seen the loony klaxon? I could use my kazoo if pushed, but I think the klaxon might have more effect.

Klaxon. See, that's a great word. People should use it more often.

yeahha... in the Registry of Hooters, Klaxon is King.
Bow down before it.

Shit, it's catching.

"And they will call the truth a lie and a lie the truth."

It's that old category error.

Because many great prophets have been derided - or even imprisoned and killed - for saying things people don't like, it's easy to believe that just by saying some things that people don't like, you become great.

This is obviously not true.

"And they will call the truth a lie and a lie the truth."

So the Bible warns that people will disagree with you, but whatever you do, don't open your mind to the possibility that they might be right! Any evidence they give you is made up, right? It's all trickses!

What a morally bankrupt book.

Certainly not financially bankrupt. It is the best selling book worldwide...

Funny, I thought it was Readers' Digest. I must get out more.

Yeah, but it's well out of copyright so nobody's making all that much money out of it.

The way the church makes out, you wouldn't know it...

They give them away in hotel rooms you know.

I noticed the book of Mormon has become a hotel room staple as well. Any mormons here?