Lawyers' panel indicts Bush, Blair

quote:

---

Of course it can be laid at your door and done so by your own logic. Any American pro or against the Bush government is responsible for war crimes according to you.

---

Then your reading comprehension is poor. Bush, his administration, and all Coalition soldiers in Iraq should be bound over to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes. All Americans who endorsed the US system and gave their tacit consent are responsible for his crimes in a moral sense, and are thus legitimate targets, but cannot be accused of the commission of war crimes.

quote:

---

However, you yourself choose to live in UK and by your own logic directly responsible for any and all war crimes committed by the state.

---

I take that back - your reading comrehension is VERY poor. Seeing as you have failed to lay out my logic accurately, your whole argument falls at the first post.

quote:

---

I think you are wrong. First, if a few fringe group members like you do not vote labor, labor wins by a larger margin. If everyone just disengages then you will have a defacto dictatorship of apathy with a single ruling power. That is unlikely to occur but in the end you will let 30% of the population decide how your country is run.

---

Your first statement is illogical - labour cannot win with a larger margin with fewer votes. My vote for them would have increased their margin - the absence of my vote decreases it.Nonsense - a government with only 30% support probably could not resist a popular uprising. Its pie in the sky stuff. If everyone disengages then the government will fall or be forced to undertake direct repression. Whatever the case, the simplistic argument that in not voting I merely concede power to others is fatuous and ahistorical - parliamtentary politics is only part of the game, not its entirety.Secondly, your understanding of British politics is poor, although this is forgivable. The Labour party purposefully excised its own hard left, the Militant Tendency, in the 80's. That was in my estimation the end of Labour as a serious political force. But what this means is that labour is dependant on a centralist rump that is much more accessible to Tory seduction than the now-alienated labour core vote would have been. The danger is that they will find themselves without either Tory switch-voters, and without their core vote. [quote] irst, if resistance is trivial then why do you bother protesting at all? [quote] Oh FFS, please read in context. I wil rephrase for you if you insist: "resistance in the US is trivial".

quote:

---

Here are some more numbers for you to chew on...maybe you would enjoy Ohnai's thread on numbers used in justification of belief?

---

You must be having a bad day - we are not discussing the validity of a belief according to numbers, we are discussing the extent to which that belief is held, to which numbers are directly relevant.Ok so the first article gives a max turnout figure of 50,000. Second link gives an estimate of 10,000 (thats a a good May Day turnout in London). Third link gives 10,000. These are so low I'm going to treat them as if they were one demo for purposes of comparison, numbering 70,000. This is set against a population of 293 million, making this about 0.02 percent of population. London alone had a turnout of 1 million demonstrators, more than 14 times all three of those US demo's combined. The UK population is about 60 million, so the London demo constituted some 1.5% of population alone, a proportional factor 75 times higher than the US.Resistance in the US is nominal. Trivial. Beneath the radar. Tiny by comparison.

quote:

---

You could have faced the consequences of your decision and campaigned against the government of South Africa in South Africa itself.

---

Easy to say from your comfortable armchair, dude.

quote:

---

Instead, you ran away to the first safe haven that would take you to benefit from a system that would allow you in. Where was your revolutionary zeal when you were challenged by the SA authorities? It seems you are a "revolutionary" if it is convenient and you won't get in trouble.It is your who chose the "like it or leave it" strategy and left when the water got hot.

---

You talk a big game about things you know fuckall about, Mamathus. In the first instance I did not spring from the womb a revolutionary; and in the second, I gave up all my friends and family to escape a prison term. Again you demonstrate only how detached you are from any kind of conceivable practical reality.

quote:

---

How is a question a personal attack? Or is it that you have no answer? Answer the question or admit that you cannot.

---

Becuase its grossly off topic, and openly framed as an attack. Its manifestly attemopt at derailing the conversation - therefater you will no doubt claim I am using the opportunity for polemic. Thanks but no thanks.I note you have not reported whether or not you have read Capital. Your request is clearly not one arising from actual interest. I also note you have consistently failed to level any meaningful argument against the propositions I have made in other threads. This is an obvious spoiling tactic.

quote:

---

First you say you are not a participant in the system, then you claim that resistance is irrelevant and now you say protesting is a badge of honor and that you are a full participant in our political life...all within one post... Choose a personality and stick with it...this schizo routine is getting old.

---

Ha ha ha ha ha.... it seems I was right on the money, you DO have a problem with reading comprehension. At no time have I ever asserted that resistance is irrelevant, quite the opposite.

quote:

---

Oh yeah, I got it... a guy who claims to only participate outside the burgouise political system (except then claims to be a full participant in the system)

---

Nope, I did NOT claim to be a full particpant in the system. You are in urgent need of a remedial english class. I claimed to be a full particpant in POLITICS.

quote:

---

wants Bush and Blair indicted using a penal system that he should not recognize as it derives from the government which he does not support, condone or accept? Consistency is not your strong point.

---

Nope, the ICJ does not sit under the auspices of a state government, but of the UN, specifically chapter 14 of the UN charter.Tell me, do you EVER bother to educate yourself on topics on which you presume to pontificate? Or are Americans above such menial research?

quote:

---

You are letting your self importance cloud your judgement i.e. any political group you dislike is irrelevant and only if you protest is it meaningful...nobody else is going to agree with you.

---

Sigh, again - arguing from your own ignorance just is not very compelling. No, I am working from an established political praxis, a historical-materialist criticism of class divided society. Thats what we commies do, ya know. And whats more - its a theory I saw implemented succesfully in SA.Thanks for the pleasure Mammathus, its like shooting fish in a barrel, as always. Some basic research would stand you in good stead, btw.

Ah yes contracycle, you are as predictable as ever. As you fail to support your statements and do not impress the throngs with your own percieved wit, you resort to a temper tantrum and personal attacks. So let's see what there is to possibly salvage from your reply.

quote:

---

Then your reading comprehension is poor. Bush, his administration, and all Coalition soldiers in Iraq should be bound over to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes. All Americans who endorsed the US system and gave their tacit consent are responsible for his crimes in a moral sense, and are thus legitimate targets, but cannot be accused of the commission of war crimes.

---

You have still not established how those who either voted against Bush or did not vote at all are giving their tacit consent..and I will return to this point when I address your running away from your responsibilities in South Africa since it reveals your hypocrisy on this issue.

quote:

---

Your first statement is illogical - labour cannot win with a larger margin with fewer votes. My vote for them would have increased their margin - the absence of my vote decreases it.

​

Nonsense - a government with only 30% support probably could not resist a popular uprising.

---

You are wrong. It only matters what percent they win (and in the US it is determined by the electoral college). But in any case, your statement is illogical. Voter apathy does not equal popular uprising. You may wish to transpose your purported activist fervor onto others but most people just don't give a damn. As for the Tories, you really think it will be a favorable outcome then if the Blair goverment goes down and the Tories return to power? How will this advance your cause...whatever that cause is?

quote:

---

You must be having a bad day - we are not discussing the validity of a belief according to numbers, we are discussing the extent to which that belief is held, to which numbers are directly relevant.

---

...in other words, your believe greater numbers or percentages make it relevant or not? Then why do you wear your personal participation in any protest as a badge of honor? You are just one person so must be trivial. To what extent in the population of the UK are your believes wrt communism held? I guess if it is small then your consider your own beliefs trivial. Numbers games don't work for creationists when they claim the majority of people believe in god as an excuse for not accepting the ToE. It does not work in political debate either.

quote:

---

You talk a big game about things you know fuckall about, Mamathus. In the first instance I did not spring from the womb a revolutionary; and in the second, I gave up all my friends and family to escape a prison term. Again you demonstrate only how detached you are from any kind of conceivable practical reality.

---

Actually, the only one talking up a big game, imploring violence, condeming entire groups of people regardless of the validity of your arguements and yet you show yourself to run like a coward when the consequences of your decisions get you into hot water. You apparently only hold principles dear so long as they do not inconvenience you...it is you who sit in the comfort of your armchair in England instead of fighting for your supposed principles in SA. Then you accuse those who stay in the US and get arrested for standing up for their principles of being complicit in US foreign policy or irrelevant. I guess if those who got arrested had all run away from the law to some cushy safe haven in the Bahamas you would call them heroes?The rest of your post was a string of poorly worded and not particularly original insults (get some tutoring from Dan Carroll on how to make a snappy comeback)...but this last point was interesting...

quote:

---

its a theory I saw implemented succesfully in SA.

---

Then why are you in the UK? If your vision was successfully implemented in SA, why leave it? Did you contribute to implementing it by running away? It hardly seems likely that SA is the model society you claim it to be.

Man, for a guy who shows disdain for Christianity, you have quite a passionate heart for your fellow humans on the planet! Can you really expect the average American to question their own government? As I have said before, if we really were a Christian nation, we would give everything away and be socialists (who love Jesus) rather than Capitalists who look the other way. Alas, human nature! The American mindset wants others to change and adapt to our way of life but God forbid if we ever HAD to lay it all at the feet of a cause!
Communism/socialism would never work in America unless we ALL were broke! Maybe if you were raised and living here in America for thirty plus years and you had worked to have a house, a car, and were comfortable, you would understand why so few are revolutionaries.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 03-15-2005 06:14 AM

quote:

---

Communism/socialism would never work in America unless we ALL were broke!

---

What was the point of that? You asked that question before and I answered it. If you disagree with my analysis, go learn something about communism and we can discuiss it, ok? Until then, don't presume to tell me where communism can and cannot work.

quote:

---

Maybe if you were raised and living here in America for thirty plus years and you had worked to have a house, a car, and were comfortable, you would understand why so few are revolutionaries.

---

I do - hubris and narcissism.

quote:

---

Ah yes contracycle, you are as predictable as ever. As you fail to support your statements and do not impress the throngs with your own percieved wit, you resort to a temper tantrum and personal attacks. So let's see what there is to possibly salvage from your reply.

---

Ha ha ha. Embarassed? I think so.

quote:

---

You have still not established how those who either voted against Bush or did not vote at all are giving their tacit consent..and I will return to this point when I address your running away from your responsibilities in South Africa since it reveals your hypocrisy on this issue.

---

By all means. But once again, you purposefully distort my argument (but you do this a lot, don't you? Honesty is not your striong suite, I fear). I never said those who did not voite at all gave their tacit consent - I specifically said the opposite, that ONLY those who did not vote can disclaim responsibility.If you voted, even for a democrat, then you legtimised the process (god this is lke teaching a remedial citizenship class). If you engage with the process, you are obliged to recognised the result. Therefore, you cannot disclaim the result of a process you participated in willingly, merely becuase you didn;t get your preferred outcome.And to think, people with such a weak familiarity with the essence of democracy think they can export it to others. Its's the blind leading the blind at best.

quote:

---

You are wrong. It only matters what percent they win (and in the US it is determined by the electoral college). But in any case, your statement is illogical. Voter apathy does not equal popular uprising. You may wish to transpose your purported activist fervor onto others but most people just don't give a damn. As for the Tories, you really think it will be a favorable outcome then if the Blair goverment goes down and the Tories return to power? How will this advance your cause...whatever that cause is?

---

Well that's a ishmash of illogicality - let me see if I can disentangle it.The proportion of votes a party wins is only important inasmuch as they command consent. Thats exactly what you gave by participating in the process. Should I feel morally or ethically bound to a leadership that was elected by only 1% of the population, even on a good proportional victory? Nonsense, because no election based on 1% of the population can command popular consent. Quite simply, 99% of people didn't give their consent. /Witholding my vote demonstrates I do NOT goive my consent; and if everyone withheld their consent, the government would either fall or be obliged to rule by force.Those are the political facts. The obsession you have with ewhat the parties do, and how many congressional seats they have, is just froth. It's mere process. It's fine to pay attention to if you think the process is valid, but none of this MAKES the process valid.Of course voter apathy does not mean popular uprsing. But voter apathy does mean loss of popular consent de facto. The governments legitimacy depends on a continually dropping degree of popular consent. If that continues, it will either have to resign due to manifest lack of popular confidence, or rule by force. Again, those are the practical facts, regardless of our opinions.No, the fall of the labour government will not advance my agenda. But it will show that murdering colonial bastards who think they can bomb the world to democracy are NOT our chosen leaders. That would be worth doing. And if it fails, theres always impeachment. And if that fails, its little skin of my nose, as I would say, what else can you expect from capitalism? But as a person, I want Blair to pay.Furthermore, I don't feel threatened by a Tory government, becuase that is what we have at present anyway. But at this point, the discrediting of bourgois governance, which is my agenda, is operating in full force.

quote:

---

in other words, your believe greater numbers or percentages make it relevant or not? Then why do you wear your personal participation in any protest as a badge of honor? You are just one person so must be trivial. To what extent in the population of the UK are your believes wrt communism held? I guess if it is small then your consider your own beliefs trivial. Numbers games don't work for creationists when they claim the majority of people believe in god as an excuse for not accepting the ToE. It does not work in political debate either.

---

Umm, then clearly the number of people who voted for a given candidate shouldn't be relevant, right?I'm afriad this paragraph is just a jumble of gibberish. I specifically said, above, that numbers do not VALIDATE a position, but they do describe HOW WIDELY A POSITION IS HELD. Do you agree?And my so we can see, that the EXTENT of hostility to the war, is prpotionally much smaller in the US than it is in the UK. Do you agree?Good. Then my position stands. Attempts to conflate such a simple numerical comparison with the ad populum fallacy are blatantly dishonest.Yes it is quite true that my own participation in a demo is next to meaningless. But equally, it is only by the mass of "nearly meaningless" actions that the demo has any validity; it demonstrates a popular position and the strength of feeling it commands.And yes, in regards my communism and the UK as a whole, my position is indeed trivial. You would be badly mistaken if, on the basis of talking to me, you expected the UK to act like a "communist" state.

quote:

---

Actually, the only one talking up a big game, imploring violence, condeming entire groups of people regardless of the validity of your arguements and yet you show yourself to run like a coward when the consequences of your decisions get you into hot water.

---

Liar - where have I done such things? I call you out - show the basis for claiming I "implore violence" and condemn entire groups?

quote:

---

You apparently only hold principles dear so long as they do not inconvenience you...it is you who sit in the comfort of your armchair in England instead of fighting for your supposed principles in SA.

---

Erm, you'll note the government has changed in SA? Not through my actions of course, but are you in touch with the real world sufficiently to realise the ANC is in power there?

quote:

---

Then you accuse those who stay in the US and get arrested for standing up for their principles of being complicit in US foreign policy or irrelevant. I guess if those who got arrested had all run away from the law to some cushy safe haven in the Bahamas you would call them heroes?

---

Certainly much more so than the cowards who submit to patriotism and tacit expectation and simply kill and/or die without thought. Yes, in fact, the slandering of those Americans who quit the country during Vietnam consription is one of the clear indicators of the total loss of an American moral conscience.But the irony is that I deeply suspect that people out and willing to get arrested for their opposition to the war are probably so opposed precisely becuase they DO feel complicit - and how can they not? Thats exactly why it is an issue of conscience for them. Its the armchair objectors, who dislike Bush, or say they do, but would never take any action, or do anything as brave as leaving behind their comfort zone for the big bad world, that are the hypocrites who want to have their cake and eat it.

quote:

---

Then why are you in the UK? If your vision was successfully implemented in SA, why leave it? Did you contribute to implementing it by running away? It hardly seems likely that SA is the model society you claim it to be.

---

Yes, I did contribute to the change by "running away", as there was one less rifle-carrying soldier to implement the policies of the state. And indeed, I jhave never claimed SA is a perfect society. The truth is far more prosaic - I don't have citizenship anymore. (more precisely, I don't have residence, I never had citizenship. Therefore I never had the vote.)And of course, becuase the next revolutions need to be in the 1st world, in the "commanding heights of the economy". And because the legacy of racism is still present and I can't stand it. And because Protestantinism is so deeply engrained. In other words, lots of reasons - but in fact, I have to apply for a visitors permit to return.But all reading this, please note: Mammathus argument is now so shredded and tattered that he is resorting to one long ad hominem. What if I admitted here and now that I am a moral cretin and a coward - would that make any difference to my argument? Not at all. Mammathus is desperately and futilely playing the man and not the ball.With all this talk of courage and responsibility, Mammathus, I think its about time you unzipped, plonked your dick down on the table and explained to us all what great feats of bravery you have performed that you feel endow you with some sort of jumped-up legitimicy to criticise me? Because as far as I can see you haven't the faintest practical sense of politics, let alone courage, whatsowever.This message has been edited by contracycle, 03-15-2005 09:49 AM

quote:

---

But all reading this, please note: Mammathus argument is now so shredded and tattered that he is resorting to one long ad hominem.

---

Pleading to the crowd? Sounds kind of desperate....and as to the last part on ad hominems...pot calling kettle....

quote:

---

What if I admitted here and now that I am a moral cretin and a coward - would that make any difference to my argument? Not at all. Mammathus is desperately and futilely playing the man and not the ball.

---

Of course it would make a differnce if you admitted you are a moral cretin and coward. Your entire argument, inconsistent as it is, is based on a double standard of if an American protests and gets arrested it is irrelevant. If you run away from arrest in SA and show up for a demo in London, you believe you are some kind of hero. You either dislike the US government and those who voted for it, while acknowledging that not EVERYBODY supports its actions and policies or you cling to your hypocrisy. Your blanket condemnation of the citizens of an entire country based on your hatred for it and your inability to even inform yourself about the movements that work against the status quo from within the US are pure and simple bigotry.

quote:

---

With all this talk of courage and responsibility, Mammathus, I think its about time you unzipped, plonked your dick down on the table and explained to us all what great feats of bravery you have performed that you feel endow you with some sort of jumped-up legitimicy to criticise me? Because as far as I can see you haven't the faintest practical sense of politics, let alone courage, whatsowever.

---

What difference does it make which anti-US protests I have attended or why I left the US or what I have or have not done politically? According to you, as an American, no matter what I do, I am responsible for everything the US does. You have uniformly discounted anything any American has said or done as irrelevant regardless of their position on this forum.But more to the point, you are merely trying to deflect the arguement away from yourself. YOU are the one constantly whining about the US, capitalism, racism and calling for revolution (though who knows where you will run and hide next time if it does happen in the UK...I hear you can get cheap passports in Ukraine). YOU are the one in multiple threads making the claims that need to be backed up. It is thus you who should show why you are in any position to criticize or condemn an entire country and anyone from it regardless of their position. You have certainly not demonstrated that you possess a single quality that you condemn the rest of us for lacking. Until you can demonstrate anything of the kind I have really little motivation to take you any more seriously than a creationist who claims that evolution can't be true since his cat did not give birth to a dog.This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 03-15-2005 10:19 AM

quote:

---

Of course it would make a differnce if you admitted you are a moral cretin and coward. Your entire argument, inconsistent as it is, is based on a double standard of if an American protests and gets arrested it is irrelevant.

---

Nonsense as you well know - the only arguments I have ever made about Americans getting arrested are that this indicates how intolerant Amerivca is of protest. Of course, you object to that too, as America can do no wrong in your eyes it seems.

quote:

---

If you run away from arrest in SA and show up for a demo in London, you believe you are some kind of hero.

---

Do I? And where did you purchase your mind reading machine, may I ask? If I thought I was a hero, why am I making my point amidst a million other people?

quote:

---

You either dislike the US government and those who voted for it, while acknowledging that not EVERYBODY supports its actions and policies or you cling to your hypocrisy.

---

Baloney - I can and WILL hold you to your own social contract - its especially important given Americas claims to be able to export democracy by force. But if you are in any way representative, damn few Americans even understand democracy at all.Everybody in the last election is responsible for the outcome. You cannot disclaim responsibility if you voted.

quote:

---

Your blanket condemnation of the citizens of an entire country based on your hatred for it

---

Tsk Tsk the tiresome appeal to "hate", always the refuge of last resort of someone losing an argument. Again, its a common American argument in my experience, given the endemic moralism that pervades its public culture. And of course it is a lie - another lie by Mammathus - as he well knows I don't even acknoweledge the legitimacy of states, and maintain an international obligation to all fellow humans, including Americans.

quote:

---

and your inability to even inform yourself about the movements that work against the status quo from within the US are pure and simple bigotry.

---

Except, as your manifest failure to even comprehend how small American resistance is by comparison to British, it is not I who is ill-informed about American resistance, but you. Remember, I get information from people who were in those demos - you get yours from the news, I dare say. Am I close?

quote:

---

What difference does it make which anti-US protests I have attended or why I left the US or what I have or have not done politically?

---

Becuase YOU want to engage in a macho pissing contest. So piss or get off the pot.

quote:

---

According to you, as an American, no matter what I do, I am responsible for everything the US does.

---

Except thats bollocks and you know it Mammathus - now your argument meanders back and forth like a river with oxbow lakes. I sopecifically said that THOSE WHO VOTED are responsible, becuase they endorsed the process. Thats too bad. Did you vote?I further said that Americans do not care about foreign deaths, which is visibly apparent by your political discourse. Remember, this is the state that thought a million and a half Iraqi lives were a "a price worth paying" but considers a few thousand American deaths to have changed the world on 9/11. This is the state that considers dropping cluster bombs that will definitely kill civilians and chidlren to be a price worth paying to save an American soldiers life. This is the state that turns a blind eye to a "shoot first ask questions later" policy in Iraq, as it did in Vietnam. This is a callous, inhumane, murderous regime - supported by its populace.And if you like, I can quite Americans who make the same point - indeed, Ward Churchill, recently discussed, is exactly one such. your facile argument about me "hating america" will be rather weak when aimed at an American, won't it, unless you intend to retreat to an argument to "self-hate" ala Israel.

quote:

---

You have uniformly discounted anything any American has said or done as irrelevant regardless of their position on this forum.

---

Another lie. I have in fact repeatedly pointed out that the most trenchant critics of the US are themselves American. I came out in immediate support for Ward Churchill, as you will recall. I will support anyone whose argument I agree with, regardless of nationality or anything else. I suspect it is because you are emotionally attached to your nationality that you find such criticism of it personally offensive. Grow up.

quote:

---

But more to the point, you are merely trying to deflect the arguement away from yourself.

---

You will note the thread title is "Lawyers panel indict Bush, Blair". At no point is the name "contracycle" mentioned in the thread topic, is it? YOUR attempt to deflect the thread toward ad hominem is merely an admission you have lost the actual argument, isn't it?

quote:

---

YOU are the one constantly whining about the US, capitalism, racism and calling for revolution (though who knows where you will run and hide next time if it does happen in the UK...I hear you can get cheap passports in Ukraine).

---

Oh, THAT was mature. All this personal assault, all becuase I dare to criticise America. Horror! And you wonder why I think the place is fanatically self-obsessed!

quote:

---

YOU are the one in multiple threads making the claims that need to be backed up.

---

Then call me on them. Of course, because I have been able to back these up by and large, and becuase you are well aware that you are not qualified to tackle me on the topic of communism, not have bothered to read any of it, I note a distinct lack of such challenge. If you'd like to pick up your game, and advance an argument instead of hurling your own shit about the place, I'm more than happy to give you any answer you should ask for.

quote:

---

It is thus you who should show why you are in any position to criticize or condemn an entire country and anyone from it regardless of their position.

---

Oh oh - have *I* been so arrogant in my condemnations that I have INVADED ANOTHER COUNTRY AND KILLED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE INTENT ON REMAKING IT IN MY OWN IMAGE? Have I? No, I'll think you'll find that was the USA, if you can draw your eyes away from the flag long enough to do some research. And seeing as America HAS done so, it is America that is in the dock, not I.

quote:

---

You have certainly not demonstrated that you possess a single quality that you condemn the rest of us for lacking. Until you can demonstrate anything of the kind I have really little motivation to take you any more seriously than a creationist who claims that evolution can't be true since his cat did not give birth to a dog.

---

A clear admission of defeat, that. And I have demonstrated qualities you do not have - I challenge and question my government, and protest its actions on the streets. Are YOU that responsible, or politically engaged? What did YOU do in the war, Mammathus?

quote:

---

A clear admission of defeat, that.

---

More an admission of boredom. You either have a position of interest to articulate (other than your personal likes and dislikes) or you don't. And you don't.

quote:

---

And I have demonstrated qualities you do not have

---

Yes you have. Incoherency, cowardice, pseudo-intellectualism, megalomania...boy, do I feel like I am missing out

quote:

---

Are YOU that responsible, or politically engaged? What did YOU do in the war, Mammathus?

---

Protested...but then to you, that is trivial and irrelevant. Have fun being a legend in your own mind...since that is the only place you will ever find recognition with your arguements.

That is not how it works. If you think that the US electoral system is not an adequate one then I am in agreement and have addressed this in threads on that issue. However I am not dealing with what it could be I must deal with what it is, and so do you. This is why I find your criticism of Kerry so strange. He made his name and has had a successful career based on standing up to a wrong war, worrying about people US troops were killing, as well as saying that US troops did bad things.Bush used that against him in this campaign and still Kerry got a large percentage of votes. As it stands Kerry would have been right in not overtly condemning all american troops for doing something wrong as it was those in charge who created the fiasco... he did hold them accountable. Yes, that was my whole point. What you are criticizing is not uniquely American, though people like to pretend like the most powerful countries have a monopoly on such practices. The fact is almost all nations and cultures do this. Thus your criticism is of human nature in general and not a valid criticism of Americans in specific. The largest demonstration this nation has held since the 1980's. I already said that. Does that not mean it is important in and of itself? Are you seriously needing exact numbers or percentages to determine its relevance? Buddy, you find where I said British news was bad. I have been very positive about British news. Oh yes, to answer the real question, I watch BBC and like HardTALK a lot. Whether the BBC can carry any insight into a foreign nation's activities is irrelevant, as I am assuming they certainly can judge their own. That is especially true as they have much better news coverage than in the US, which I have criticized. You and I know that does not mean anything unless the party actually removes him. Maybe Brown will overcome, maybe not. In any case one can hardly say right now that Blair is in any better or worse shape than Bush... he is still in power. I'm not sure why you threw this in. Yes I know it has been going on for some time, since the late 90's (well really since Pim Fortuyn's murder and the resultant rise to power of Balkenende), and has been accelerating within the last year. It doesn't look like Britain is moving in a very good direction either. I see they are planning on introducing nearly the same immigration testing scheme that Holland just adopted. Not when we lost over 3000 in one of the worst terrorist attacks in the world, and the presidential candidate is running on a platform that he is protecting us from future attacks and has so far been successful. At that point, and with so many other issues that are also important to deal with in an election cycle, how many we killed in a war is not that important of an issue.I mean what would that have even looked like in a debate? What would people take away from that?Yes it is an issue that should be getting more press. Yes American press in general is avoiding that discussion. Yes, most Americans will probably be more concerned about the number of American soldiers lost. That does not mean all americans are anything, nor that they have no concern for Iraqi deaths.To tell the truth the more galling thing to me is not that Iraqi deaths are not discussed in some quantitative way, but that there seems to be a tacit acceptance or nondiscussion of Bush and Co's main premise which is "better that innocent foreigners certainly die on their soil, than allow the possibility Americans might die on our soil." Sez who... you? Actually it is a sweeping reversal from policies held since the late seventies. It is also a reversal of diplomatic policy since the 1940's.That said it is not an abberation from US or world history. I think Napoleon's conquests are the best analogy, but I am sure some can find better. Maybe one could even find an ironical connection to Saddam's history.In any case, I have not been defending the Iraq war. It was really bad policy and many innocent people have been killed by the US. The idea that it is just the US's problem is shortsighted and likely to lead (at best) to short term solutions which will only lead to the rise of yet another power which will do the same thing.Our task is bigger than stopping the US and childish games like blaming every american according to some lame stereotype. Although what Clinton did was atrocious and in my mind criminal, as well as certainly setting up the precedent for AQ to respond with 9-11, it pales in comparison to what Bush has done.Clinton may have swerved from international law, but he was pretty good at getting consensus for his acts and did not conduct any mass invasions, leading to incredible regional instability.His were misdemeanors compared to Bush's felonies.Interestingly you dodged the one important thing you needed to address in my last post. You say I am not doing anything. I told you what I have taken part in and what some of the results have been. You did not tell me what I should be doing in order to "count" as doing something in your rulebook, and what you are doing according to that rule book.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Okay folk. Way too many personal attacks on all sides.Shutting this one down.If anyone wants the decision reconsidered you know where to bitch!

---