I think anyone who voted Labour in the last election is complicit in murder

[Aloha]

Because you knew Tony Blair lied and lied and lied to get us into that war, and now children are being killed every day, and bodies are piling up in the streets. I think he is the most vile, wicked and contemptible man in Britain. How can he sleep at night? I feel so ashamed he is our prime minister.

It's not a different thing - he would have done it again I'm sure. And it was only one example. Although we only have our media's perspective of what he did/didn't do to go by, of course.

actually he probably wouldn't. He wasn't under contant scrutiny by the UN when that massacre took place.

Absolutely Expat.

I think that its a pretty flimsy argument, if your only 'get out' was to put a cross the 'right' box on a slip of paper, in order to enable you to rage at everyone on here because of their vote.

Just in case any one has any doubts, the Tories were fully behind the Iraq invasion and may have done it too although perhaps with less Bush arse licking (?) and the Lib Dems. opposed it although Kennedy was a fecking mess and didn't make any sense half the time, but at least they opposed it.

It is true and supported by research on voting bahaviour that the vast majority of voters are mainly concerned with personal issues (local stuff, council tax, income tax, policing, etc.) when deciding to vote (it is something I studied years ago and i am sure it is still true today)

it is also true that foreign policy issues (what they call "high politics") are the sorts of issues that voters have the LEAST impact on - so a Govt. bent on going to war WILL go to war whether we like it or not

that just means that you vote for the party that you think is least likley to go to war, not something you can always predict year ahead, so i don't actually agree that if you voted Labour the first time you have blood on your hands, etc. that is just far too dramatic

Sorry Senora, but I disagree.

One strand of my arguement is that a lot of voters aren't really interested in international politics. For many, life is day to day, month to month. To debate international laws is a luxury for those who have the time and the means. Or for some a genuine survival strategy. Doesn't apply to the majority in the UK.

And what happens if a country contravenes international law? Sanctions or something? Hmmm, i can really see that happening to the UK or USA

(no doubt about 50 posts will have happened be the time I send this!!)

what are you disagreeing with mercy?

The only thing I've said about international law is that I think the UN business is a red herring. I agree international alw is problematic.

It's not true that everyone votes on stuff to do with day to day stuff. Jose Maria Aznar was voted out of office over the Iraq war.

mercy - i actually agree with you on the not interested in international issues stuff in voting patterns. it is correct, most people here and in the US couldn't give a toss what happens to Afghanistan or Iraq, or whoever. It does not really impact on their voting behaviour, it only effects the minority of us.

...should have said Jose Maria Aznar was votred out over the Iraq war and the majority of Spaniards have less in the way of means than the majority of Brits.

so, remind me why the democrats won congress then?

But SP, the Spanish thing is a special situation, in most instances people do not vote on international issues.

Now that Iraq has become a true mess, I think here in Britain people will vote Labour out and that Iraq WILL be an importnat factor. But it has taken many years of a blood bath to get us to this point where people will vote with their feet.

Iraq is NOT the only resaon the Democrats have won Congress. Bush has been making a fecking mess both inside and outside the country, just like Blair.

But what if you think Labour will do best for internally?

But many people in the labour party were opposed to the war anyway. At the time I often heard it said that "Tony Blair is not a creature of the labour party"

People vote for labour because they don't want conservative in, who now have nowhere left to go except to run an extremely right-wing (bordering on racist imho) campaign in the months leading up to the general election. Most people consider a vote for lib dems to be a wasted one.

chocolate - i think that says a lot actually about why Labour has been around for so (too) long in my view. it is EXACTLY because most people think they would do a good job at home. it isn't about Iraq.

just to reitertae without sounding like a total hypocrite, i didn't vote Labour when they first won nor the second time nor will i in the future.

Senora, I'm disagreeing with your post of 22.40.

I have voted tactically in the past for lib Dem. or another party simply to make sure Labour or Tory didn't win. Of course they always bloody do, but still worth a try !

We have a flawed voting system that only allows those two to win. I don't know whether prop. rep. is any better, but often wish we had something similar to the Europeans here. Of course their system is flawed too, too many coalitions and changes of Govt., unstable systems, don't know what the answer is. But hate the to and fro between Labour and Tory.

You've made some good points yellowrose.

Aloha, I'm sure you'll come back to this tomorrow but I just wanted to ask if you are ok; you sounded more upset than angry tbh.

Images and thoughts of children dying in the name of 'politics' is bloody awful. I have a recurring nightmare which involves hte photo of a little girl who died during the Bhoal incident

sorry Bhopal

The Lib Dems did not oppose the war according to the Green Party

Does anyone think the war would not have happened without the UK's support? Because I am fairly sure the US would have done it unilaterally in any event.

Perhaps TB thought it would be worse for the world if that had happened which had something to do with his support for it? Just a thought but I have to say I feel it's more complex than "TB is a murdering child killer"

Aloha, I completely understand your OP.
But it wasnt Tony Blair - he was just the tool. Thats why he looked like a cornered rat during the whole going to war process. It was the British establishment - and if by some miracle the LibDems had got in last time, you can be sure that foreign policy wouldnt have been a jot different, because the prime minister just does what they are told in matters like this.

electra and nightynight - yes I agree.

I'm going to be honest and say when Labour got in after many years of Tory government, I cried with relief and joy.

Since then , I have occasionally been near to tears when I see TB's face at certain times. It just doesn't seem right - he and Clinton could have done some positive. Bush and Blair - no.

Bush is his father's puppet.

Mercy - Bush is the puppet of the Neo - Cons. That is very important. It is the Neo-Cons (who back Israel) who have created this mayhem.

I think Bush would have attacked Iraq whether he got UK backing or not, but the fact that TB was such an arse licker made it easier for the US to make it look like a moral crusade against the evil Saddam. Two is always better than one.

TB has reversed decades of good relations the UK enjoyed with the Middle East. The Forgein Office have been saying this very clearly. High ranking UK diplomats have resigned over Iraq. We are now seen as the enemies of even the moderate Arab/Afghan/Iranian, etc. Mulsim.

NN - you are wrong about the British Establishment. TB is the one who calls the shots. He dominates his cabinet. It is the PM that declares wars. I think what you say applies far more to Bush than Blair.

oh just listen to yourself Aloha - 'dance on the fucker's grave' etc etc. You really do bring a special brand of hysteria and hyperbole to MN. If you intend to dicuss politics try to stop screaming. "This is what you voted for " my arse.

ridiculous