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.

not a discuassion I want to get in...my dh is in the armed forces and is in afghanistan right now....

I have been thinking about this since my postings last night. In 97 (and every other election since I could vote) I voted Labour with conviction. Last time I didn't have conviction, but the second party, and miles ahead of any other, were Tories. So should I have voted LibDem or Green and risked the Tories getting in? I really don't know the answer to that. I wonder if all the people like me and Dino and Tamum who voted Labour with reservations had gone elsewhere things would have been different? But in what way? Tory? Libdem? Hung?

just don't go there bozza.That way madness lies!

On a tangent here....

My Nan in law was talking about labour this and tory that.

I said "Nan, there are 2 subjects you should never discuss; politics and religion"

Nan "Oh yes, that's right" and carried on her political conversation

It is a question I am interested in though donnie.

Gawd no, stop discussing religiona nd I'm out fo a job! And age buys you that prerogative anyway doesn't it?

Or is it just all my rellies are rude old codgers?

It would be a far more accceptable voting system, and a true representation , if everyone had to vote. yes you can actually regiister a non-vote here now by spoiling your ballot paper( they do announce spoiled papers) but if you have to attend ballots, but are free to spoil your vote (which of course you must be under anonimity rules anyhow), then that takes out all the 'ah yes but in relaity only X% of poeple voted for...' debates. because until then its only the X% thats relevant, the rest squanderd their say.

And if you do vote, you have to accpet whoever does get in. Lobby, criticise Ok fine, but you must acceot they got in fairly.

margo, there are 3 actually if you are in "polite society" and stuck up your own fanny in St Johns Wood or Chelsea or somewhere: politics, religion AND sex

my favourite topics actually, but then i don't give polite dinner parties

true peachy you have to accept the results, except if you are in America and from Texas and your name is Bush, you can get to become president rather unfairly, because they don't count the ballots properly

take those 3 out of the equation YR and i'd have to give up talking completely. [no comments suggesting that would be no bad thing please...]

I think this thread is good for demonstrating a few things - why there is a need for governments and the fact that politics in itself is not conciliatary. Perhaps it would be more beneficial for people to consider these points if they want to make a difference.

The whole political and legal ssystem exists due to man's inhumanity towards man and the fact that human beings cannot be trusted to act in a responsible and compassionate way towards others. To argue what political party is better than the other just continues to stir the pot of divisiveness and irrespective of what political party is in power they will continue to have to react to the hostilities or bullying of one human being towards another.

Can you change this? How do you go about changing it? It is recognised that the only thing you can change is yourself and maybe that's where things need to start - with you. By leading by example, being mindful of other people, and start making a difference towards those around you - then perhaps the domino effect can start to happen. With the best will in the world you cannot change another person - you can only help them to decide that they themselves want to change.

Until such change takes place and people start acting responsibly towards one another - they everyone worldwide gets the governments they deserve.

There is a lot of suffering going on out there and perhaps the topics should be more geared to how we reconcile and solve the problems mindfully, rather than foster ill feeling and further division within a group of people who already have an exceedingly important common interest - raising the adults of tomorrow!

ruty - lol - me too - oh add breastfeeding to that list - god i am shallow and have a one track mind

soapbox - that post is true soapbox stuff ! i like it !

I must have missed the section on the ballot where you could vote for Tony Blair to be a liar, to take us into war against popular mandate, to allow the US to have Guantanamo (which has been operative longer than this war by the way), oh yeah and rendition. Was it next to the box for a vote for the libdems to be lead by a closet drinker and for the tories to go through another leadership election?

You can only vote based on what is known at the time, not predictions of the future.

YR.
I take your point Soapbox. I think tho that people are entitled to feel passionately angry about what is going on in Iraq and sometimes a jolt is needed to make us wake out of the narrow focus of our own lives [myself included] TB and GB should not have had their war crime activity reaffirmed by second terms. And like NightyNight says, in Victorian Britain people turned a blind eye to suffering on their doorstep, now we turn away from it even though it is only a plane ride away. I don't think people are murderers of course, if the voted Labour twice, but maybe we should all look long and hard at our responsibilities and culpability in allowing such a terrible thing to happen again, having learnt nothing from our history.

Just so there is no confusion.....i'm soapbox's sister, not soapbox - only signed up to help her with the Christmas thing and continued lurking thereafter!

yes, history constantly repeats itself around the world, but you have to READ history before you realise that, i.e. NOT GB or TB i gather, TB is a barrister, but doubt he has ever read a single book on world history or even international law as for GB, he can't read full stop, remember that nursery book he was seen holding upside down in front of a load of journalists

hello sister of soapbox, you sound similar though in your posts !

Having just read this, I just want to say that I did vote for labour, and I am not complicit in murder.
My best mates dh was in Iraq, came home about 4months ago. He was told by many iraqis (sp?) that they are indeed very happy that Sadam was removed from power, and many of them lost members of their family through the atrocities that happened before.
My exp was iraqi, his sister was severly abused (not going to write down in what way), it is still something that severely upsets me, and his body was covered by scars from the abuse.
My exp also said that it is now iraqis fighting iraqis, and that did go on, but it wasn't in the news.
BTW, I have no real interest in politics, just repeating what people I know who were and still is in Iraq are saying.

Ruty yep we'd be stuffed wouldn't we? I hope if the polite society ever get to make the rules they'll at least refund my student loan LOL!

Jofeb great post. The Iraqi V Iraqi thing is very important imo. If we bloame Bush and TB for everything (and I dislike GB as much as anyone I can promise you- and totally agree that the whole last American election was very dubious anyhow) then you are effectively ignoring the actions of many people. If we don't hold the Iraqi 9and other Middle East insurgents in iraq) responsible for their own actions, then we are effectively denying them recognition as thinking, functioing human beings- and surely that is precisely what we want to see cease in palces like the Middle East? We want (Okay i want) everyone worldwide to have a vpice, that is their own and they can use to achieve the political ends they wish without fear of persecution. In order to achieve that, those who fight and kill ahev to be held responsible for their actions. Yes have a trial for TB and GB- why not? But don't persecute them and hold them solely responsible when they have never actually held a gun, and then let off the poeple who strap bombs to themselves and then stand in the midst of crowds of children at a bus stop.

Likewise don't blame the authorities for the people who carry out atrocities like Abu Graib (sp). (I don't mean the army officials who engendered it, I mean people in the chain of cammnd above that level). Prosecute the individuals and those who knew intensively, but spend your time on the culprits, not the figureheads.

And of course we should recognise that the vast majority of troops in Iraq are there with only the best of intentions, and are trying to rebuild Iraq- the terrible nightmare incidents we see in the press are not representative. I dread what will happen when some troops come home- I hope the troops aren't persecuted, I really do.

Oh and Gunatanamo- sick, horrid, and a total travesty. How they can even conceive of this idea I will never understand.

the irony is that the civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites that is effectively going on in iraq now was triggered by the removal of Saddam Hussein [who was of course a mass murderer]. But at least many ordinary Iraqis had under his leadership a semblance of an ordinary life, a life which is now almost inconceivable.

Tito was nothing like Saddam - he was not a murderer though he ruled with an iron fist. But under his rule Former Yugoslavia did pretty well. Only after his death did the ethnic groups divide so deeply and start killing each other [the Serbs were by far the worst perpetrators of course]. My point is you can't just barge into a country, remove a leader and expect everything to fall into place. Afghanistan is now a terrible place and women and men are worse off than ever before.
the aid promised after the invasion never materialized. The Taliban are coming back. Whoever is in charge of these military strategies really does know nothing about history or society or about ordinary humanity, it seems.

Surely at least partially triggered by the removal of Ali Ruty? Or the divide wouldn't be there.

No doubt like the rest of humanity, another divide would have taken its place.

But not the Sunni / Shi'a divide.

sorry didn't quite get that peachy?

Well, the Shi'a / Sunni split occurred when Ali was assasinated (or I am remembering that wrong? probably. So at least part of the history goes back to that?