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

News

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:
Aloha · 13/04/2007 21:52

Of course you bear the responsibility if you vote for someone who is about to embark on mass murder and you know it. You have the blood of children on your hands.

Saddam was NOT a mass murderer when we went to war. He was kept in his box by effective supervision. Things are far, far worse for teh people now.

OP posts:
PeachyChocolateEClair · 13/04/2007 21:52

Thing is, if you hate the status quo join a party, campaign against it.

Don't start a thread that actually manages to slate every party.

That is pointless and takes away everybodies voive. YOUR voice is not more valid than anyone elses (a generic 'your' btw). Parties like LibDems can succeed but if you think it could be run better- excellent! Come and do it, you'd be very welcome. Don't just slag off others, that is really rather vulgar, pointless and frankly spineless. Dont attack under anonimity- get up and fight where your voice is valid.

Shouting accusing is pointless, especially about the past. Change the future.

southeastastra · 13/04/2007 21:53

course they couldn't give a toss

it might interfece with question time. or a date with a prostitute

the english system is based on public school system. sucks

harpsichordcarrier · 13/04/2007 21:53

why not yellowrose? why do you object to Hitler being brought into it?
he was another homicidal genocidal maniac.
I don't see any particular distinction.
oh and I supported intervention in Kosovo too.

ZZMum · 13/04/2007 21:54

fab fab post peachy -- said exactly what Iwould if not drinking and stupid!

Heathcliffscathy · 13/04/2007 21:54

harpsi sorry but you are so wrong about this.

if we had EVEN waited for a UN resolution we might have had more of a mandate.

it was an obscene invasion. and what has happened was always always going to.

Aloha · 13/04/2007 21:54

The French were quite OK about letting go of Vietnam, actually. It was the British (Churchill was scared independence might give the British Empire ideas ) and the paranoid Americans that caused the war.

OP posts:
foxinsocks · 13/04/2007 21:55

peachy, it's their job the politicians. If I employ an accountant, I expect them to do the job I pay them for. The MPs get paid to do a job. As a voter, I'm entitled to complain when I feel that job is not being done well without actually having to weigh in and do the job myself.

Aloha · 13/04/2007 21:55

I support Amnesty, torture charities and vote against mass murder, actually. NO anonymity. Everyone knows who I am.

OP posts:
harpsichordcarrier · 13/04/2007 21:56

no Aloha, Saddam was a mass murderer. what, you think he had dabbled in a bit of genocide in the past but he wouldn't have done so in the future? reformed character? and by whom was he being effectively supervised??

yellowrose · 13/04/2007 21:56

yes, well, international law does NOT allow the invasion of other countries because you don't like their leaders.

southeastastra · 13/04/2007 21:56

i think we should blame the us

they just can't help themselves

the world would be better if

a) run by women
b)

Aloha · 13/04/2007 21:56

At the time we declared war on Hitler he was at the apogee of his power, and had invaded and was occupying numerous previously sovereign countries and was planning to invade Britain. Was the same true of Saddam? Hmm?

OP posts:
Heathcliffscathy · 13/04/2007 21:57

peachy. point is if you voted labour, i agree with aloha, SHAME ON YOU.

anyone else is better to be honest.

because every single wretched vote they got last time says 'well done. we agree' or 'we don't give a shite as long as we are better off' and both of those are shameful.

if the conservatives had got in despite their pro-war stance it would ahve been seen to be us as a nation collectively saying 'no, what has happened in iraq is wrong'.

as it is, we said 'hey, it's fine'.

so now london is deemed more dangerous then New York in terms of potential terrorist thread.

well done all you labour voters....

PeachyChocolateEClair · 13/04/2007 21:57

thing is Aloha, me too- everything you said, and I campaign against slavery

but you have failed to acknowledge even one of my posts on here thats not listening is it?

and no that isnt the job of the politician, the job of the politician is to represent his constituency, and the constituents have to let them kno9w what they want.

Dismissing politics as something for other peole- I really do not get that.

harpsichordcarrier · 13/04/2007 21:57

anyone who trusts the UN to do the right thing is naive and foolish, frankly.
as a former student of international law I go like this at the very idea that they are somehow the keeper of international peace and defender of morals.
pshaw.

bozza · 13/04/2007 21:58

I think we women have a slight tendency to big up women. I think in positions of power lots of them can be pretty ruthless and immoral.

speedymama · 13/04/2007 21:58

I think the reasons for the Iraq war is very complex.

This is my personal opinion. When Sadam first invaded Kuwait, it spooked Saudi Arabia and they begged the Americans to save them. So the USA went in and put a base there. This, incidentally, caused Osama Bin Laden to see red and was the reason he started Al Qaeda.

Anyway, after they sent Sadam packing from Kuwait, the USA remained in Saudi at the request of the govt but many of the more fervent Islamists were against the American presence and this led to more terrorists acts being committed. The Saudi govt realised that in order to survive, they needed the USA to leave but they were still worried about Saddam. They were also worried about Bin Laden who wanted Americans off Saudi soil. When 9/11 happened, this provided the perfect excuse to get rid of Saddam and enable the Americans to withdraw from Saudi soil.

All, imho, of course.

Aloha · 13/04/2007 21:58

And he was being supervised by the UN observers and under a tough sanctions regime, rememember? the same UN observers who said that he did NOT have weapons of mass destruction. Yup, those know-nothings.

OP posts:
Whoooosh · 13/04/2007 21:59

Out o finterest (nad I truly mean just interest) Aloha-what would you do about the Zimbabwe situation?

harpsichordcarrier · 13/04/2007 21:59

ah well that's ok then, he was only murdering his own people and his neighbours. no worries, let him get on with it.
doesn't really count.

Aloha · 13/04/2007 22:00

Er, peachy, I replied to your last post, and others. I VOTED against the war. I emailed the prime minister and my former MP. WTF am I supposed to do?

OP posts:
foxinsocks · 13/04/2007 22:00

yeah and the libdems knew they were going for the anti-war vote. But collectively, they had (at election time) an alcoholic leader and couldn't get it together. Of course, we're entitled to slag them off!

southeastastra · 13/04/2007 22:00

i really think world powers are above the uk anyway, america does really rule whether we like it or not

mrsjohnsimnelcake · 13/04/2007 22:01

i have read the first post and totally agree with aloha, but i didn't know this is what they would do... i really thoguht they would be better than this.
So i don't agree with tha=e fact that we all have blood on our hands- i just didn't expect them to do this...
i gave up on them bit by bit, but wrote to tell mr blair when the hooha about employing paedophiles in schools broke... err, duh! not a good idea really.

I feel sad .. there is nobody to vote for, nobody to trust, and i don't knwo how i shall vote next time
big bloody horrible mess and no way out that i can see