Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

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

440 replies

Aloha · 13/04/2007 20:44

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.

OP posts:
Original poster
Aloha · 13/04/2007 21:44

I would not vote for a proven liar and mass murderer. I hardly think that puts anyone on the moral high ground. It seems pretty basic stuff.

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 13/04/2007 21:45

totally agree fox. am bloody pissed off about it too.

harpsichordcarrier · 13/04/2007 21:45

well I am not a member of either the UK or US government so I am free from any charge of hypocrisy.
well fis I am not sure I agree with you.
I was absolutely in favour of intervening in Afghanistan.
I would certainly have been in favour of intervening to get rid of Hitler.
Would I have been in favour of intervening to get rid of Saddam? yes, maybe. it depends.
to say - well there are lots of other genocidcal dictators - well I don't think that gets us any further.
should we intervene to prevent genocide? yes.
I also think the legal/illegal division is a bit of a red herring too. Clearly international law is just another branch of politics. so to say something is legal is to say it is politic. and to say something is illegal is to say impolitic. and sometimes impolitic things are right and moral.
so I am not particularly convinced that to say the war was illegal is to say that it was wrong. I think it was badly planned and badly handled and the post invasion situation has been criminally mismanaged.
but to leave Saddam in power for all that time was wrong and immoral and negligent of the UN, frankly. and the countries and world leaders who allowed that to happen (whether it was legal or not) have bllod on their hands too.

PeachyChocolateEClair · 13/04/2007 21:45

And FWIW with the books I do read- many, right now the Heart Sutra (buddhist text) but also the Qur'an, Adi Granth, vedas all on my list atm. Or si that not quality readng material?

southeastastra · 13/04/2007 21:45

i remember when i was about 25 being really fed up with the way the world is run BUT there really isn't anything we can do about it it's just a fact. depressing as maybe

Original poster
Aloha · 13/04/2007 21:45

How can you overlook the lies?

OP posts:
southeastastra · 13/04/2007 21:46

whoops about 30 post too late

Original poster
Aloha · 13/04/2007 21:46

christ, he wasn't 'left in power' anyway - he was PUT in power. By the US.

OP posts:
PeachyChocolateEClair · 13/04/2007 21:47

'I think, if the libdems could have just pulled their finger out (last election) and even just managed to run a half coherent campaign, then something could have happened. They had the most perfect opportunity (being the only main anti-war party) - they could have really gone for it but they screwed it up right royal. '

Ie everyone in this ocun try who bothered to vote is wrong in some way?

FFS

I actually believe the peolpe in the wronga re those who didnt vote, I believe in compulsory attendance at voting- yes you can destroy your ballot but you have to get off your arse and go to the voting

yellowrose · 13/04/2007 21:47

ah but SADDAM was NOT a mass murderer when it suited our purposes, i.e when he invaded a country we hated even more (Iran in 1980 - 88) a million were killed in that war and no one gave a toss, we just armed Saddam to the teeth and supported him until it suited us better to get rid of him.

The Iraq invasion was not one of principle (human rights, yeh right !), it was staged through lies and more lies and now it is a mess with 600,000 plus Iraqi's dead (for what ?).

Original poster
Aloha · 13/04/2007 21:47

Does anyone know that when Ho Chi Minh took over Vietnam originally, he played The Stars and Stripes?

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 13/04/2007 21:47

harpsi. we did not invade to prevent genocide.

at all.

we had been sponsoring saddam for years whilst he genocided away.

PeachyChocolateEClair · 13/04/2007 21:47

Who overlook the lies Aloha?

bumperlicious · 13/04/2007 21:48

I don't agree with you aloha, and as someone who voted Labour I'm quite offended that you would call me a murderer.

I don't think things have necessarily gone right in Iraq but I think TB made the decision that he thought was right at the time. Also after 9/11 the US basically said you are either with us or against us, that's a tough choice to make.

I don't always think the government are right, but I work in a job where I make my contribution to running of the country so I'm doing my bit to help. I certainly don't consider myself a murderer. The point of democracy is that we can make our own choices about who leads our country, we are lucky for that. Doesn't mean we should be held accountable for their decisions.

harpsichordcarrier · 13/04/2007 21:48

no yellowrose he was always a mass murdered.
always, always, always.
and he was put in power by the US and by France and yes they are complicit too.

foxinsocks · 13/04/2007 21:49

I agree about what sort of person Saddam was - but we seem so careful to push diplomacy everywhere else. There are other ways they could have deposed him.

PeachyChocolateEClair · 13/04/2007 21:49

Agree with harpsi's last post

Heathcliffscathy · 13/04/2007 21:50

yup. does anyone that ho chi minh approached the US to try to broker a deal before the war. he was a nationalist way before he was a communist, history could have been very very different.

my familiy's history could have been as my father is half vietnamese and left saigon in '69.

southeastastra · 13/04/2007 21:50

Chi Minh

vietnam was originally the fault of the french

harpsichordcarrier · 13/04/2007 21:50

could you read my posts?? I am not saying we went to war to prevent genocide.
although who knows TB's motivations?
but we are not talking about the causes of war. we are taling about the alternative - to not go to war.
which makes those who opposed it complicit in leaving a genocidal mass murdering torturing dictator in power. for ever, presumably, unless the antiwar protestors has an agenda to remove him by some other means?

Original poster
Aloha · 13/04/2007 21:50

As it happened, at the time of the massacre of the Kurds I interviewed MP Emma Nicholson about the situation and the feature was published. Most politicians couldn't give a toss.

OP posts:
foxinsocks · 13/04/2007 21:50

peachy, I wasn't having a go at people who vote. I was just having a go at the Lib dems (the party) for not doing more!

harpsichordcarrier · 13/04/2007 21:51

(I am being slightly hyperbolic, by the way, joining in the tone of the OP and the thread. in case anyone was wondering )

yellowrose · 13/04/2007 21:52

why does bloody Hitler come into every discussion of Saddam and the Taliban

harpsichordcarrier · 13/04/2007 21:52

fine, aloha I am not talking about the lying politicians. I am talking about those who voted against the war.
how did you feel about Saddam Hussein? and how did that influence your voting?