Why I'm voting Labour....

I suppose it's not surprising that those that opposed the war will jump on anything that appears to reinforce their point of view. The increasingly obvious fact is that Iraq and it's people are infinitely better off without Hussein, and so for that matter is the rest of the world. Whether or not there were 'lies' told about WMD is impossible for anyone outside of the cabinet to actually KNOW. More important, the war became increasingly necessary in direct proportion to Husseins danger to those around him, and the finer points of what he had or did not have are relatively unimportant to most level-headed thinkers, but of immense importance to the opposers. That is why the likes of Mykle bang on about it at every opportunity, he opposed the war and can't/won't accept that maybe he's wrong. I supported the war on humanitarian grounds, (that'll give mykle and his mates a laugh), but make no mistake, I, like most others despise war, any war, but sometimes...

If you ever read my posts you might stop getting your facts wrong, George. For a start, at the time of the war Saddam Hussein was less dangerous than he had been for years - and certainly no danger to any of the countries that invaded. So by your own arguement their was no reason for the war. Archergirl gave you some very insightful reasons as to the real motives for the invasion but there are none blinder than those that don't want to see (or perhaps can't because their mouth is so big it obscures their vision). As for the people of Iran being better off - they certainly don't seem to think so... when were you last there?

Oh, sorry Jude, it's not so much that i have differences with George.. as much as he has them with me :)

I've never been to IRAN, mykle, was the war against them? Mykle, you wouldn't know a FACT if one took you home and shagged you! If there's any big mouth on this topic it's yours. If you want to know how the IRAQIS feel about it, ask thosein the north he gassed almost to extinction and also those that are now running there own country with help from the west. I'm sorry mykle, try as I may, I can't see you in any other way than as a monumental fool. (How's the flirting going by the way)

You're right, George, I AM distracted :) Flirting going GREAT. Have a good weekend.

Or alternatively, give Michael Howard a whirl.. On immigration 'He [Howard] refused to disassociate himself from an election advertisement issued by Bob Spink, a Tory candidate in Castlepoint, which said "What bit of 'send them back' don't you understand Mr Blair?". Independent 19/04/05

"If you ever read my posts you might stop getting your facts wrong, George. For a start, at the time of the war Saddam Hussein was less dangerous than he had been for years - and certainly no danger to any of the countries that invaded. So by your own arguement their was no reason for the war." 9 million Iraqis went to the polls for the first time a few months ago, Mykle. ... they will have to learn that true democracy is not the easy option, does not bring immediate rewards, is a way of life rather than just a political system, that it needs watching over and working at constantly... even thus they will eventually recognise it as the only path for the growth of their nation. They were looking to the future. And here is you, still looking at the past. What is wrong with you? I agree with George, your obsession borders on the unhealthy. Do you do anything so as not to face the future?

yeah i've changed my mind. i hate tony blair and everything he represents. i'm going to vote lib dem as a protest so that blair becomes aware that i did not like him taking us to war against iraq. i mean, what did iraq ever do to us? nothing, that's what. he only went to war because he didn't like them, and that's never a credible justification. when george bush phoned him up and suggested the whole war thing, i can just imagine tony the phony rubbing his hands together and whooping with excitement that he gets to play the big world statesman. all he had to do then is convince the cabinet, several layers of civil servants, the military, MI5 and the queen, and he was in business, all because he had always dreamt of moving little flags around a big map in a secret basement, like they did in the bond films. of course,nobody dared question the decision because blair could have them put in prison or killed by his secret ninja assassins.

I just love the way people say things like "that's the way his mind works" or "i think he only hears what people think he wants them to hear them say " completely unqualified ramifications of utterly brain-dead positions. by all means found your opposition to war on morality, on fear or on repugnance, but please be honest about it and not hide behind a morass of half-baked wet-liberal soundbites. actually firm up your position with some perspective and some critical analysis of your own position. i am an apologist for the iraq war, because i have concluded, on my own, that there are more complex reasons for it's happening than just blair getting a stiffy or having a napoleonic complex. i may be wrong, in which case i will burn in hippy hell forever, i certainly choose to ignore ninety five per cent of media reportage on it, because i cannot separate their conclusions from their role in the fostering of dystopian scenarios, which are essential in maintaining the psychological tension which keeps capitalism functional. for every conspiracy theory that the press doesn't tell us the truth to protect blair, bush and graham norton from our pure eyes, there are as many conspiracy theories that we are being protected from the one true horror of it all. we are complicit. we are the beneficiaries, but we are allowed to stand on the sidelines mewing about unfair and horrible it all is - because then we feel OKAY ABOUT OURSELVES. as you were. sorry if i bored you with repetition. that never happens in the abctales forum does it? people saying the same kind of thing over and over again. *sarcasm*

Bingo.

Boy, I'm glad to find someone else who doesn't just believe what they hear...

Those of you bleating about not letting in the Tories so you're voting Labour, how ludicrous is that. We already have the Tories in power, have had for the past 18+7 years. I thought writers and artists were sensitive caring souls. Most of you just want to wash your hands of the crimes committed in our name and look the other way. Pretend it didn't happen. Intellectualise it out of existence. I love the way some of you gloss over all the carnage and suffering with a few glib phrases. Face it. You're in denial. You're apologists for mass murder. You refuse to confront the ugly reality of a war that need never have been fought. I'd like to see how you cope with your loved ones suddenly blown to bits, your kids with severed limbs, your friends and neighbours reduced to headless corpses in the streets. Then give me your pathetic schoolboy jokes or your dinner party chatter about how much better life is in Iraq. Don't ever ask again how the Nazis came to power in a civilised country like Germany. It's precisely this kind of turn a blind eye attitude that provides fertile ground for fascists and authoritarian dictators. My God, you vote Blair in again and what message does that send him. He'll think he's invincible, can perpetrate any outrage and get away with it. Go on produce your pseudo-intellectual counter arguments, but nothing you say can change the fact that thanks to Blair we are all complicit in the unnecessary killing of thousands of innocents.

yeah yeah yeah But what do you REALLY know?

bravo sir!!. i agree!. voting labour would be akin to skinning a puppy alive and smearing it's still-twitching viscera in the face of a quaker. well done you!

I agree with almost everything you say, fateful. Perhaps the Labour Party are guilty for letting Blair do what he did but careerists are careerists in whatever party. So do we put a worse government in power just to teach Blair a lesson? I'm sure karma will catch up with Tony just as it did with Maggie. I agree, it would be nice for everyone to show Blair that his slick schemes and false integrity have fooled a lot less than his colossal vanity and meglomania would ever allow him to believe but surely that's no reason to jump out of the frying pan into the fire. They are all puppets and the same hands pull the strings choose which ever party spins the results to appease their followers. Within the small amount of leeway that politicians really have I'm sure, on balance, that Labour is the only alternative. The real question to ponder is why modern democracy is about who you don't want not who you do!

*projection alert* " It’s how his mind works, it’s the pattern that gets repeated over and over in his political life. " yes i agree there was that war in iraq. and then that, that, that thing with top up fees! And what about that thing with the thing? Clearly a pattern emerging here of a man out of control, letting his mind take over. If I had wanted a prime minister with a mind, i'd have voted socialist worker's revolutionary party.

Well, the British public have been stupid to vote in twice with the biggest majorities ever: * To date the most successful Labour Prime Minister ever. * On course for his third election victory which would make him the most successful Prime Minister in the history of Britain, ever (carrying greater majorities than Maggie Thatcher in her three elections) * Achieveing all this, despite taking Britain into a hugely unpopular war (one I believe historians will look back as marking the start of real democracy in the Middle East. The jury is still out on that) If anything, Tony Blair and his government have been TOO succesful... allowing them to ride roughshod ver parliament and the opposition (no good thing). How do the facts compare against your analysis then? "The greatest tragedy for Britain was that John Smith died and we had foisted on us an intelligent but extremely vain, shallow and inexperienced leader in the shape of Blair" Let not the facts trouble you, when you cannot see beyond your narrow idealogical agenda. [%sig%]

A lot of people did what they could, Fateful, it just didn't make any difference. I used to imagine what it must be like to be sat in your home with your family waiting for a cruise missile... I could not think of any reason for all the missiles other than to demonstate how much better the US had become at killing from a distance. Like playing a computer game, press fire and watch the carnage on your screen... terrible! Just don't think that voting Conservative will help... in fact I just don't think voting will help.

The Puppet Masters name the tune and the politicians dance. It does not matter where you live, US, UK or France. In fact the whole world over - they hold the strings of power. Deciding who will live and die and the policy of the hour. Democracy is a joke to them - but they pretend that it's their mission. You can vote for anyone you like - so long as it's a politician! They do not hear a word you say - until it's time to vote. Nothing changes very much - but it wears a better coat. They tell you what to do and think... who to like and who to hit. They control the media - I'm surprised that you don't know it Can we stop them, do we dare? It's easier to say you just don't care? Big Brother is watching with eyes in the sky. Searching for those who still question why. Shooting the shepherds and bombing the sheep. Feeding us dreams to help us to sleep!

Who are the puppet masters?

The UN seen powers that control the puppets. You can pull my finger nails out.. I will'nt talk!

You alright bingo? I worry about you.

yeah well everyone knows that blair is a moron. he took us into the iraq war KNOWING that it would cost lives of thousands of people, most of whom were innocent. he took us into war with iraq KNOWING that the wmd basis was complete baloney he took us into war KNOWING that it would result in a massive dip in his popularity with most of the british population, his own party and the newspapers he took us into war with iraq KNOWING that it would cost this country BILLIONS OF POUNDS, money that he had earmarked for other more productive goals he must be either a complete moron, or a statesman of conviction. of course he's a moron. the newspapers told me so. even the bloke down the cafe agrees. i don't think the labour party realised that he had faked his cv when he applied. because clearly tony blair is clinically a cretin.

Still quite angry then? Vote Labour if you like, that's why we live in a democracy, good luck to you. But you can'd be ANGRY that people don't feel madly grateful for what the Government has delivered - that's the electorate for you, they are ungrateful and have short memories. Anything bad a Government does they want to punish, anything good would have happened anyway. Chill out, Tony will be PM on 6th May and we can forget the whole thing. Why get so ANGRY about politics?

fateful no one of us have said we are voting for bliar

I understand your point Smiley and it's comforting to know there are open-minded people here who think as you, but I really believe we dissenters can make a difference. It needs but a tiny percentage of the electorate to switch sides in the marginals and Blair is out on his ear. What's wrong with a hung parliament? What's wrong with Charlie Kennedy in the cabinet? I am moderate Labour and always have been. It really pissed me off when we were infiltrated by the militants in the 80s and now I'm just as pissed off with the infiltration of the authoritarian right wing Blairites. There are still Labour MPs I admire, people like Robin Cook and Bob Marshall-Andrews, but most of the rest of them have betrayed their Labour roots.

You're pissing in the wind.

I agree about the betrayal, fearful, in fact I am fearful too but I don't think that we can solve anything by tactical voting... however, I hope I'm wrong and a miracle happens and things change for the better. If not, take care and don't beat yourself up - it just does not help. Just do what you can when you can - that's the best anyone can do.

Oops, sorry Fateful, I'm just getting tired and fearful :)

It's that phrase "Dystopian scenario" which throws me. Dictionary to the rescue! And the "half-baked wet liberal soundbites" - just like home-made biscuits slightly undercooked and soggy. Mmm ... now let's get our boys back home so they can be used to invade somewhere else!

Nothing will convince me that Bush isn't a wicked piece of sh*t who'll sacrifice anything and anybody for his personal and family profiteering. I detest the man and everything he stands for especially his bogus spirituality. So why did Blair commit himself to the Iraq war when our country is going to gain sod all from it and his party lose support in the election? Could it be that he actually thought it was right? I still think he's got more integrity than the Tory leadership even if I think he should have let the Americans go warmongering by themselves. But it's not the main issue in the UK election however much some people might want to make it so.

did sadam not genocide thousands of indivuals. When he took that course f action against inocent people his country deserved to be bombed. The people in his own country should have risen up sooner and removed them. There where enough of them, they didn't. All be it they would have been scared to revolt against such indivuals but theywould have quickly gained support from the international community for uprising against a ictatorship which was proven *according to media*to be behind wide scale genocide. All be it a lot of them might have been killed, but it turns out lots of innocent' people where killed anyway. As wrong as it was and if we are to belive the media on his genocide maybe it had to happen. Whats the true story about the genocide anyone know.

the greatest tragedy got britain, john smith dying? i'm sure all the millions who have died in various wars or lost people in wars, or lost people to disease,etc would agree with you on that...

Neil, I can't see the point in trying to guess Blair's motives for backing Bush beyond the obvious ones - although the speed with which we 'forgave' Ghaddafi after it became clear that America was not going to share the oil was quite illuminating. I'm just amazed that you can't see the two B's are tarred with the same brush!

emily. that was quite shameful. fateful. you sound like somebody skewered on their own self-loathing and desperate to place the blame on somebody in a suit. the UN is a pathetic no-hoper and i can't believe people fall for it. the idea of all nations gathered together to create peace and harmony is a beautiful one. unfortunately there are only a few voting members of the UN who are the decision-makers, and they are all corrupt, self-interested despots of one kind or another, kind and dewy-eyed ancient priests of rainforest peaceloving hippy-kingdoms they ain't. putting your faith in the UN is a bit lame as they have proved to be morally vacuous when it comes to israel, apartheid and many many many other situations in which "sensitive caring" types - some of whom are not writers or creative people - would find ample cause to scream and shout and kick off. so a discredited and highly political UN is not really relevant. the notion that the iraq conflict was not sanctioned by the (small number of voting members) UN, and therefore the iraq conflict was "illegal" seems to be the most repulsively pedantic cop-out of all time. war should not be legalised, surely that's a fundamental irony? so many people now clamouring for the proper legal requirements to be met by any country engaging in scatter bombing, terrorism and the imposition of martial law? i just wouldn't go there if i were you. i believe that the war in iraq served the notion of world peace in ways that will not yield satisfaction for a number of years. this belief is based on an analysis of recent history in the middle east, economic factors in a whole swathe of participant countries, and the careful examination of what has actually happened since the conflict began. i know that war means children, women and men have their lives snuffed out, have their limbs blown off, whole cities, towns, villages destroyed. trauma, suffering, fear and madness are commonplace in war. i'm more than acutely aware that my tiny witterings here might appear to condone or applaud the imposition of this war on the people of iraq. but at least i'm not reduced intellectually to endlessly repeating rory bremner gags and calling it debate.

"What Blair did to us in Iraq is completely unforgivable." What? Rid the world of Saddam Hussein?

Very funny Martin. It wasn't supposed to be taken literally. You know what I meant.

Bingo, you're wasting your time if your post is directed towards mykle. he is so deeply entrenched in his own sanctimonious self-righteousness that only a smart bomb could possibly penetrate his armour. Neil, I know to be a good man, but his naivity, whilst charming, prevents him from considering the possibility that war is a part of human nature and sometimes necessary for the common good. Both are either blind, or didn't care about the thousands of innocent people dying at Husseins hands before the war. The numbers would have escalated anyway unless he was stopped. There seems to be a kind of barrier that surrounds some people that enables them to ignore the plight of those whose lives don't touch them. I agree totally about the UN, it's a waste of time, space and money. It always was, and always will be in it's current guise.

"by all means found your opposition to war on morality, on fear or on repugnance, but please be honest about it and not hide behind a morass of half-baked wet-liberal soundbites." I opposed the war but not for any of these reasons. As pro-war people have rightly pointed out, in terms of morality or repugnance, Saddam Hussein was/is considerably more repugnant than Blair or Bush. I opposed the war because I don't support the liberal interventionist model for foreign policy - meaning that the most powerful countries decide which governments in the world they do or don't like then go in and remove them. I don't think this position is fundamentally evil but I do think that the long-term consequences are likely to be negative. Some people do support liberal interventionism in principle and I completely respect that but most people in Britain and elsewhere don't and Blair knew that, which is why we had all that palaver about WMDs.

As I've said, Bingo, I was opposed to the war in Iraq, but I don't believe that the people who disagree with me are wrong, or evil, or stupid. I think it was a finely balanced judgment call. Like it or not, for Americans the world view changed on 11th September and that had a huge impact on world politics. I don't think it was evil or despicable to go to war in Iraq - I think it was a very tough decision and one which in the end, our Parliament voted for. I think most sensible disaffected people would be horrified to wake up on May 6th with Michael Howard leading the country, but we know that isn't going to happen. It is a far bigger cert this time than in 2001. But we had Tony Blair saying during the Iraq conflict, if you don't like it, exercise your vote in the election to say so. And in a blunt instrument like our democracy, people are finding out that it isn't very easy to register your dissatisfaction. The question before the country is not - Did Tony Blair and Labour do a good job since 2001, but who do you want to run the country? The complaints expressed by a number of people in part reflect that they may have contradictory answers to those questions. George and I have discussed the war a lot - I don't consider him a rabid warmonger or an idiot for having a substantially different view to me. I hope that he doesn't consider me feeble or woolly-headed for not being in favour of the war. People can have different opinions in politics without having to be blasted for them. For what its worth, my own broad political view is that I don't much care who is in power generally (as long as they have positive ideas and not just Howard's fear and hatred tactics), but I'd favour the government of whichever colour having a working majority of around 50. I can't vote for that, so I just have to let the electorate get on with it.

i'd rather have saddam than tony blair any day. in fact, i'd rather have pol pot, the apartheid system, the soviet bloc, east germany, papa duvalier and charles manson all active in politics rather than our current prime minister, who is an evil cretin. this man tony blair must be stopped. what's he ever done for anybody in this country? nothing except create misery, poverty and degradation. before he became prime minister i was proud to say i was british, now i am considering emigrating to north korea. if anybody votes for tony blair they may as well say " i am a moron and a filthy child-murdering sadist to boot "

Just as a matter of interest, George - have you ever looked into the precentage of those people murdered by Saddam that were involved in the armed insurrection organised by the Americans who then failed to deliver their promised support? What, not in the 'Facts for fanatical friends of fascism handbook'... well that's a surprise then :)

Nice to see that you read and digested my post above, Mykle. Let's try to remember that you didn't gas any Kurds and that George didn't shoot any Iraqis. You disagree about the war - that doesn't make either of you culpable for anything that has happened in Iraq. The war happened, it's a done deal. We can have these arguments again in a year's time over Iran (possible) or North Korea (bloody unlikely)

Point taken Andrew, but if Missi will insist on misrepresenting the facts then I will occasionally point out that he's doing it - can't help it. Mind you I'm a bit off colour after all these depressing thoughts and I need to get some fresh air and sunshine before I get booted out of the Smiley union :) I will try, Emily, I will try...

I shall be voting Labour, as I have my entire life. That is because I am a socialist. I've no doubt there are those here that will say that Labour have very little to do with socialsm, but they have more socialist ideals than any other party, and i still believe that society should be about everyone, not just the privileged few. I have always based my voting on the core ideals and viewed each and every leader as just temporaru custodians of the socialist dream. i know thaqt each and every encunbent has tried, and very often succeeded in modifying the dream to suit thier own views (and most probably because they wish to be seen as giants of radical change, ensuring their place in history. Ego's at work!) My inherent hatred of privilege won't allow me to even contemplate voting for those greedy, selfish bastards that sit across the despatch box. Where the Iraqi war is concerned, (Christ, this is so fucking boring now, being perpetuated by bad losers, (and I'm NOT refering to Andrew here, who has been one of VERY few who has offered considered, informed and intelligent arguments to support his views)), it was fought, accept it, and instead of continually whinging about it try and be constructive about where it goes from here. Andrew and I have debated this topic at length and whilst I believe we concur on some points, we are far apart on others. Maybe in time we will converge, who knows, though my age is against me at least as I'm old enough to be Andrews father. Therein lies part of the differences between us. We are all the sum total of our experiences, and most of my early ones are now lost in the past, and younger people would have no knowledge of them short of reading about them or hearing tales from older relatives and friends. I'm not suggesting that these older experiences are more valuable in any way, just that they helped shape my views and opinions in the same way that lack of them has helped shape the views and opinions of a younger generation. It's mykle's view that I know nothing and bend, twist and misrepresent the 'facts, whereas I believe that 'facts' are for those that KNOW the truth and at best, all any of US can hope for is the wisdom to distill the next best thing from the information we're given. Mykle thinks he KNOWS the facts whilst I know he doesn't, anymore than I do. It's his arrogant self-righteousness that pisses me off. Only time will tell if the war was beneficial to Iraq, and more importantly, the world as a whole, and the history books in a hundred years will no doubt, be able to analyse the events of the last ten years with an academic attitude not rendered useless by the emotion of the current climate. I'm sure there are those that would say that it's not 'my' world anymore and I should shut my mouth. Maybe they're right. I shall be forever grateful though that I lived through rock'n'roll.

Straw poll - anyone here not yet got the heavy-handed point that Bingo is making with every single post?

Apologies for multiple typos, I do believe I'm getting worse with every post.

there it goes again. *sigh* the most powerful countries in the world decide which governments in the world they do or don't like then go in and remove them. what a load of simplistic childish kak. yeah i agree. like vietnam. like cuba. like south korea. like china. like russia. that's all they ever do, our evil western leaders, just invade people they don't like, and the people they do like, they send them round jaffa cakes and two litre bottles of lilt. what a filthy bunch of satan-worshipping fascist bullies. thank goodness we're nothing to do with them. i just hope that george galloway gets elected and is carried aloft as a hero by the many thousands of grateful muslims who sincerely applaud his deep concern for their rights, heritage and prosperity. i give up. you people are right. i've got a problem. i should just keep schtum and let the great wash of revulsion for liberal interventionism carry me forward to a brave new future.

>> ...i'd rather have saddam than tony blair any day. in fact, i'd rather have pol pot, the apartheid system, the soviet bloc, east germany, papa duvalier and charles manson all active in politics rather than our current prime minister, who is an evil cretin... << But of course you would. Because none of those affected your own little life. Thankfully there are those on earth who consider the plight of others outside their personal family and circle of friends.

Perhaps if you gave us your views, Bingo, rather than just applying reductio ad absurdum to everything, we might be able to have a discussion. Personally, and this is a simple personal opinion, I'm not in favour of military action that isn't sanctioned by the UN because I'm concerned that it sets down a marker of 'might makes right'. As it happens, the US have mostly set their sights on pretty unpleasant regimes and I can't argue that the world is not a better place for deposing Milosevic and Hussein. So why am I against it? Because I believe that unilateral action based on conviction rather than evidence and a consensus of belief that the military action is justified is a dangerous step to be taking and it remains a dangerous step even if you agree with the targets to date and you happen to be as Napoleon said "On the side of the big battalions" It is dangerous because oppressive and unpleasant regimes quickly get the message that if you want to avoid getting a kicking, you either have to change your behaviour (which may result in your leadership ending in your bloody and violent death at the hands of your previously oppressed people) or get yourself armed up like Iran or North Korea or China so that invasion is too risky. That's my view - it isn't the only view, but it is a view, and to dismiss it as simply as you have been doing undervalues the complex issues involved. I think that Bush and Blair have had some of the hardest decisions to take of any politicians - they'd have been damned whatever they've done and the spinelessness of the UN didn't help. The UN isn't much cop, but it is the system we have and until we reform it, I think we should operate within it. Shall I do the Bingo reply for you? Ooh, Emily, you're quite right - George Bush is the devil and we would be much better off having Pol Pot leading the free world. Yes, the United Nations have always singularly delivered successful results every time they've ever been involved in anything and they're utterly free of vested interests and internal politicking and horse-trading. It's quite clear to me now that we should let oppressive regimes torture and flay their populace and sit round doing nothing while we read the Guardian and knit ourselves a windfarm. Let's hope Tony Blair is burned at the stake while David Blunkett's brain is scooped out with a rusty spoon.