Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

STOP. read this. it's so important.

61 replies

Heathcliffscathy · 22/04/2005 22:29

can you believe that in iraq the americans are kidnapping the women of wanted people to flush them out....i can't believe it...the invasion was meant to safeguard democracy and human rights wasn't it????

please don't do what everyone else is doing and ignore this article

OP posts:
bossykate · 22/04/2005 23:57

sophable, "we should pay more tax" yes ok but meanwhile they are starving (the universities i mean)... and actually i don't have a problem with people investing in a degree course which will only enhance their lives - studies have shown that the individual benefits more than society as a whole.

and another thing, more tax means central govt control - tuition fees go straight to the institution. given our current trust issues with the govt i think i'd rather the latter, thanks.

bossykate · 22/04/2005 23:58

i did say this would be where we parted company!

marthamoo · 23/04/2005 00:09

The article in the Guardian interviewing people who marched against the war on how they will vote was fascinating and rang many bells with me. I'm 'lucky' as I live in an utterly safe Tory constituency - so I can vote anything without it making a damn bit of difference. I wish LibDem was a viable alternative.

JoolsToo · 23/04/2005 00:11

very lucky moo

MrsDoolittle · 23/04/2005 00:15

sophable, I'm pleased you have highlighted this. I was so sure that after noone found WMD, Tone would be out on his a*e.
I can't believe everyone is so certain he'll get back in.
Shocking really - we should be ashamed!

tatt · 23/04/2005 05:21

Once the person writing the guardian article said "Iraq, which previously had no links to "terrorism", " I'm afraid they lost all credibility with me. Can anyone really believe that? There are "reports" of americans kidnapping women - who from, the followers of Sadam Hussein? If you are/were totally opposed to the war then vote accordingly but don't suspend critical faculties entirely.

I don't believe everyone is convinced Labour will win.

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 23/04/2005 10:35

errr.sorry tat, but saddam hussein was not a fan of al quaida...there were no links with terrorism (altho obviously saddam terrorised his own people, sadly so do the saudis but no one invaded them). this is just a lie that you have swallowed whole im afriad: the bush regime knew that if they said 911 and iraq in the same sentence often enough it would stick and it has.

OP posts:
Caligula · 23/04/2005 10:51

Quite Sophable. And actually Tatt, it's irrelevant who they're kidnapping the women "from" (bizarre word formulation if you don't mind me saying so); it's illegal to go around kidnapping people, irrespective of who their relatives are.

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 23/04/2005 10:54

yeah caligula but the whole iraq questions seems to exist in a legal vacuum where things like human rights, legal reasons for going to war, treatment of POWs just don't exist!

OP posts:
stitch · 23/04/2005 10:59

sophabel, please tell me you arent so naive as to believe the crap about safeguarding democracy?
every nation on earth, except america declared this war illegal. and even in america a lot of the people were against it.
havent read everyone elses posts,

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 23/04/2005 11:01

also re 'reported' news from iraq...given the journalists seem to be getting shot (not by iraqi insurgents btw) unless they are in permitted 'embedded' positions with coalition (sorry, still can't say coalition in this context without choking slightly) forces, i'm afraid 'reported' is the best you're going to get.

OP posts:
Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 23/04/2005 11:02

of course not stich. but the point is that if you did believe that, then tb bush et al have shown it to be totally untrue.

OP posts:
tatt · 23/04/2005 15:41

Caligula the question was where the reports originate and whether they have any credibility, as sophable, at least, obviously realised. "Reported" just isn't enough and limitations on journalists is a weak response. Sophable al queda are not the only terroists in the world but if you really want to believe there weren't any links nothing will convince you.

Amberlilli · 23/04/2005 16:11

I will be voting Lib.Dem this time, I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that they were against going to Iraq.
We are supposed to live in a Democracy so why couldn't the people decide whether we went to war? How arrogant of TB to go ahead knowing the overwhelming feeling of the public was that it was wrong!.
It makes my blood boil to think of all the money spent and lives of servicemen lost in this terrible debacle.

Did anyone see Michael Howard being grilled by the spokeswoman from netmums the other morning?
He could offer nothing to SAHMs.

Sorry gone off the subject a bit there!!

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 23/04/2005 16:44

tatt, what on earth is your evidence for links between the hussein regime and terrorists???? have you been able to unearths something that the bush regime, the blair govt and the UN haven't (remember that really lame presentation by powell where the sum total of evidence was an attempted visit by an al quaida representative to iraq? i can't believe you're seriously making an assertion that the parties above mentioned would have loved to prove but haven't been able to!

OP posts:
Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 23/04/2005 16:45

no one is saying that michael howard is anything other than a pernicious joke (if such a thing can exist...ks??) amberhill!

OP posts:
SenoraPostrophe · 23/04/2005 17:12

Good for you, sophable - me too (voting lib Dem)

tatt - there was certainly no link between iraq and Al Quaeda. Even Bin Laden, in one of his missive said something like "I donn't care hwat happens to Saddam Hussein's lot, but we must fight the Americans" - the only thing AQ and Iraq had in common was a hatred of the US.

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 24/04/2005 14:17

tatt...you've gone awol.

OP posts:
MargeMN · 25/04/2005 05:58

Please, please, please...it pains me to read these grand sweeping judgments about Americans...as an American, I voted against Bush and am not pro-war as most of the people on this thread appear to believe. I have about as much control over our government and military as you do over yours. Unfortunately, we hear nothing about our troops kidnapping women . U.S. media are puppets.

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 25/04/2005 08:38

where are the sweeping statements about americans...i've only ever talked about the bush regime...i'm fully aware that just under half of all americans don't want him in the whiltehouse...however, just over half of the voters did vote for a second term for him, and given that his economic record leaves a lot to bet desired, i can only assume they were voting for a 'great wartime leader'.

OP posts:
Toothache · 25/04/2005 08:42

Sophable - There is at least one massive sweeping statement on here about Americans, not by you though.

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 25/04/2005 09:02

totally sympathise with your position tho MargeMN...

OP posts:
handlemecarefully · 25/04/2005 09:05

I'll be voting labour. I have my reservations about the war, but I won't be throwing the baby out with the bath water....i.e. won't base my vote on a single issue.

Original poster
Heathcliffscathy · 25/04/2005 12:49

but hmc, labour are going to win whatever happens...it's about reducing their majority to the extent that tb is forced to give over to gordon brown...

and as single issues go, lying to parliament about the reasons why tens of thousands of people have been killed is quite a big one isn't it?

OP posts:
handlemecarefully · 25/04/2005 12:56

Umm yes. I concede your point!