Lawyers' panel indicts Bush, Blair

quote:

---

Because mymonkey said something? He doesn't speak for me, much less for all americans.

---

An John Kerry, and your news media, and....

quote:

---

Clearly 49% of voting americans would disagree with him too.

---

Nonsense - the only issue that ran was how many AMERICAN lives had been lost. Where was Kerry's moving speech on the plight of the Iraqi's under foreign occupation? Nowehere, because Americans don't care, and he would easily have been painted as "unpatriotic", as Fonda was.

There were other candidates. Just because Kerry was the final candidate for the democratic party does not even mean that all democrats liked him or all of his views.If you want me to downgrade the 49% comment, I am not sure why as I thought you were discussing monkey's attribution of Bush being acceptable as a patriot and thereby washing him of massmurderer. I think it is clear that those voting for Kerry were unlikely to accept monkey's position, much less those that would have preferred or did vote for other candidates.As it stands Kerry did care about how the war was run, and it is unlikely it would have been conducted at all, much less in the same fashion if he had been in charge. There was a great clip of him discussing potential military action in Iraq with cadets at west point. He said flat out what needed to be done including how to avoid the situation we ended up getting into that resulted in more Iraqi deaths. As far as I know it was only shown on a Chris Matthews interview show during teh run up to the democratic convention. It really showed have gotten more play, especially by the Kerry camp, during the run up to the election. It showed how forward thinking Kerry had been, and opposite from Bush and co.It would have also put to rest claims that Kerry was just making things up after Iraq went south. He did have foresight, not just hindsight. You don't care about anything except chopping up babies... see how easy that is?I'm an American and I care. There are others. Many others. I didn't record two major demonstrations of foreigners. Perhaps you don't realize how much dissent really had gone on? How much still exists?

---

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)

In his own words contracycle states

quote:

---

I live in the UK, demonstrated against the illegal and immoral war, and have signed the petition calling for the impeachment of Blair. Please see: Impeach Prime Minister Tony Blair for a Bang Bros

​

I agree entirely with Holmes that patriotism and mass murder are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I would say they are frequently linked, in that patriotism necessairly overlooks the flaws of your own state and demonises members of other states - this makes mass murder easy.

---

It is clear that contracycles view is that by moving to the UK BY CHOICE (an active process), he is himself absolved of any responsibility for the behavior of the British government merely by the fact that he has protested against Blair.However, apparently, this is impossible for anyone from the US because

quote:

---

Nowehere, because Americans don't care...

---

Even if they take identical actions against the Bush government by protesting. The 49% that did not support Bush to him are irrelevant. The thousands of Americans that protested the GOP convention in NYC including getting arrested to him do not count. If he were to have been among them however, he would declare that he was the only one in America against the government. This is plain bigotry.It would seem contracycle should reflect on his own words (since clearly he thinks that nobody else has anything of value to say) when he states that

quote:

---

patriotism necessairly overlooks the flaws of your own state and demonises members of other states - this makes mass murder easy

---

Replace patriotism with egocentrism and you have exactly the same problem and the same potential consequences.

Thank you, Mammuthus, for saving me the trouble of actually writing my reply to contracycle's inconsistency. You had already done it for me, so let me simply add a hearty agreement.

quote:

---

It is clear that contracycles view is that by moving to the UK BY CHOICE (an active process), he is himself absolved of any responsibility for the behavior of the British government merely by the fact that he has protested against Blair.

---

Don't be ridiculous. BUT - I didn't vote for Balir, or indeed anyone else - I don't get involved with Bourgeois politics. Blair cannot and does not enjoy any form of consent from me regarding his position or actions.But even so, it would be stupid for me to ignroe these problems becuase others will hold me accountable for them anyway. I was a legitinmate target in SA, and now I am one in the UK.

quote:

---

Even if they take identical actions against the Bush government by protesting.

---

There have been a very few small demos, thats it. Bush was re-eloected: the approval was clear. The US cannot in any sense claim the mantle of resistance.

quote:

---

he 49% that did not support Bush to him are irrelevant.

---

That is correct, they are irrelevant - becuase by voting they endorsed Bushs position and power. They equipped him to do what he his doing, even if they voted for an opponent. They have to carry the blame too.

quote:

---

Americans that protested the GOP convention in NYC including getting arrested to him do not count. If he were to have been among them however, he would declare that he was the only one in America against the government. This is plain bigotry.

---

Oh puhlease. In the first case, the last issue is just silly, becuase the whole republican party likes to mainatain its "anti-state", whatever they mean by that. But to the general case, yes there are a handful of Americans who opposed the war, and do so because of the loss of Iraqi lives - but if you look at most of the US anti-war demo's, they pay very little attention to Iraqi casualties, ands instead its all about "Americans dying for georges war". IT's not an invalid criticism - but it does not generate any confidence that these people would do any different if they themselves were in power. Presumably they would ratehr see more bombing and less infantry on thre ground, and then they would be happier, yes? It remains an endorsement of the view that the president can and should kill foreigners with impunity. Nobody will hold him to account for killing any number of foreigners, ever.

quote:

---

Replace patriotism with egocentrism and you have exactly the same problem and the same potential consequences.

---

Perhaps - fortunately egocentrics are not likely to organise in large groups to achieve a political agenda, eh? But maybe they would be more likely to do hit-n-run postings about arguments they have not sufficiently thought about yet, eh Mammathus?

quote:

---

There were other candidates. Just because Kerry was the final candidate for the democratic party does not even mean that all democrats liked him or all of his views.

---

Then they should not have voted for him, should they?Nonetheless this selection proves my point - the D.'s couldn't go to the electorate on a ticket that expressed concern for the Iraqi's - only concern for the number of American lives lost. Thats exactly the shameful collusion of the notional left with the bloodthirsty right I so vehemently criticise.

quote:

---

As it stands Kerry did care about how the war was run, and it is unlikely it would have been conducted at all, much less in the same fashion if he had been in charge.

---

I have no doubt at all Kerry would have run a better military campaign. But thats not the point - the point is whether the deaths of non-Americans count. They don't appear to matter to Kerry in any but the most notional sense; or of they do he suppressed that feeling as an electoral liability.

quote:

---

I'm an American and I care.

---

So then what are you going to do?

quote:

---

There are others. Many others. I didn't record two major demonstrations of foreigners. Perhaps you don't realize how much dissent really had gone on? How much still exists?

---

So where is it? What does it do? What has it achieved? Come on, tell me what progress you are making.You forget I have links with the US left, and so I do have an idea: its tiny. Nominal. Insignificant. Beneath the radar. Nowhere.Remember, Aznar has already been deposed. Blair is threatened and has active legal motions. Bush alone came out of the war with his reputation and political power enhanced. Because Americans just don't care about killing foreigners.

I was amongst the 49 percent that voted for someone other than Bush (I voted for Kerry). But more literally, I didn't vote for Kerry - I voted against Bush, as in "Anyone but Bush". Voting for Kerry was the best way to get rid of Bush.You are saying that I, by voting against Bush, endorsed Bush's position?In order to not endorse Bush's position, I needed to not vote against him?MooseEdit: Changed subtitle, also tweeked content some.This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-14-2005 01:23 PM

Again, someone beat me to my reply. Contracycle's position is not a very reasonable one.

I think it speaks much, for the opposition to Bush that many had, that there was so literally an "anyone but Bush" position.Of course there are some of the Bush camp that fall under "except for _____ or _____ or _____".MooseAdded by edit: Being one that often is unable to grasp the subtleties of many aguments, I have been mystified by how Contracycle has managed to clash so severely, with so many members who seem to share so much of his position. I guess finally he hit me with something that even I can grasp.This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-14-2005 02:06 PM

quote:

---

Don't be ridiculous. BUT - I didn't vote for Balir, or indeed anyone else - I don't get involved with Bourgeois politics. Blair cannot and does not enjoy any form of consent from me regarding his position or actions.

​

But even so, it would be stupid for me to ignroe these problems becuase others will hold me accountable for them anyway. I was a legitinmate target in SA, and now I am one in the UK.

---

So you think by not involving yourself in politics at all (except maybe to rant at a protest) absolves you of responsibilty? or does not result in implicit consent for the government? By non participation you are making Blair stronger as he has one less opposition vote to worry about. I am sure he would thank you for your non-participation.

quote:

---

There have been a very few small demos, thats it. Bush was re-eloected: the approval was clear. The US cannot in any sense claim the mantle of resistance.

---

This is a nice fiction you have chosen to believe to support your bigotry but it is not supported by fact...and unlike you, many of these people went to jail for their actions..and this was just the New York protestshttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0902-09.htm
http://www.infowars.com/print/ps/new_arrest_record.htmPretending things did not happen is not a particularly good way to support your argument.

quote:

---

That is correct, they are irrelevant - becuase by voting they endorsed Bushs position and power. They equipped him to do what he his doing, even if they voted for an opponent. They have to carry the blame too.

---

By having chosen to live in the UK instead of staying in South Africa you fully support the Blair government and are therefore responsible for all military actions carried out by the UK in Iraq....gee contracycle..this kind of puerile arguement devoid of logic is fun I suspect you maintain this view in a twisted way to justify your bigotry against Americans.

quote:

---

IT's not an invalid criticism - but it does not generate any confidence that these people would do any different if they themselves were in power. Presumably they would ratehr see more bombing and less infantry on thre ground, and then they would be happier, yes? It remains an endorsement of the view that the president can and should kill foreigners with impunity. Nobody will hold him to account for killing any number of foreigners, ever.

---

However, your presumptions are just that, presumptions. These people are not in power. You have not given any indication that you would not kill foreigners left and right if you had the power to do so...in fact you have made it clear you would in advocating violence against anybody who disagrees with your social and political views...how is what you are advocating any better? What compelling reason or promise of a better system have you ever presented that would draw people away from the one they are in? Not getting involved at all in politics as you have chosen? Ranting about the deficiencies of other protesters while claiming it a badge of honor that you show up to protests?In any case, the protests in the US addressed quite a wide variety of problems presented by the Bush government. You are myopic in only choosing the Iraq war as the subject...Bush represents a danger to a much wider range of issues.

quote:

---

Perhaps - fortunately egocentrics are not likely to organise in large groups to achieve a political agenda, eh? But maybe they would be more likely to do hit-n-run postings about arguments they have not sufficiently thought about yet, eh Mammathus?

---

It depends...ask the victims of Hitler...an egocentric got a group of egocentrics to organise and control large groups of people to achieve a political agenda.As for hit and run...I did not run.I have now responded to you. But you will have to deal with the fact that the inconsistencies in your positions and your inability to articulate anything but bigotry and hatred for large parts of the human species make many of your threads not worth the time to participate in. Sometimes you make very articulate posts that are of high quality. But in this thread your blind hatred of Americans has so clouded your vision you do not seem to be able to think straight. It is a pity.

Two devastatingly good posts. Thank you Mammuthus.

---

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)

The major flaws in your position have already been revealed and dissected by Mammuthus, but let me put in a few points... This is a deliberately naive view of how elections actually work. While you are incorrect about what this proves, I think you are driving toward a very valid criticism of how politics gets in the way of coherent and useful democratic election systems. The idea that Americans could not talk about Iraq casualties is a bit absurd, it would really depend on how they were discussed which could be a potential turnoff.Are many Americans obsessed with their own losses more than those of others. In general I would think the answer is probably yes. But the one thing I have learned in being outside the US and having had friends from all other parts of the world is that that criticism which is often lobbed against the US is actually a pretty common trait of all nations. A great example was the tsunami disaster where it seemed every nation was concerned about how many handfuls of their own citizens suffered when thousands of times that amount died in the region.It sure seems fun to point fingers at the US though doesn't it? Hypocrisy is a universal phenomenon. There are many issues during an election and he has to hit on the most important ones. Before the election and the war he was quite clear about what needed to be done and the risks to Iraqis which should be avoided. During the election it wasn't really going to make a huge difference to talk about Iraqi deaths... unless he had some plan to bring them back from the dead?I don't think he even talked abot US dead that much. His main concern was for those still living and what to do about the future. At least that seemed to me the way he talked. I have an idea, how about you tell me what I have to do in order to count as "doing something" in your book. I want you to explain exactly what is valid and what it is you are doing to lead by example.As far as I can figure out, you chose to move from a nation that did not support the war to a country whose leadership championed the war to the same degree as Bush, went to a demonstration which was as or even less effective in changing anything as US demos were, and are deliberately going to avoid taking part in elections which could remove that leadership in the future.I was in demonstrations in the US (oh by the way they did mention Iraqi dead), moved to a nation that did not give military support to the war (the friends of Bush only being able to give a "moral support" for the war) and after helping a bit with the occupation then pulled troops, took part in the largest demonstration this nation held since nuclear weapons protests of the 80's, and finally took part in the US election which did remove republican control from my state which is about the best thing I could do as my state is now a pretty solid force against Bush and co.Yeah, you tell me what I should be doing. Yes I do forget as you are apparently only involved with nominal, insignificant, beneath the radar, nowhere people that feed you nominal, insignificant, nothing information about what the US is like, especially regarding what the "left" is like (as if the "left" was the only group opposed to Bush... sheesh).You can't even accurately describe what demos were like. Blair is not threatened. I am just across the channel and watch the news. He has been buffeted a bit more than Bush has, but he is not in grave danger at all. I am impressed with the Spanish. I have been considering moving there as the Netherlands have gone into some paranoid lockdown mode and are now attacking themselves in order to be "free".I don't think you should believe all the hype about Bush, especially regarding his reputation. While he and his PR machine act as if he has been vindicated, there is a vast difference between winning an election and being vindicated for one's choices of actions. Already his approval ratings on major subjects have slunk below voter turnout for his election, and that is within the Republican party.After the election I wrote an analysis and I think it is holding true, it certainly is getting backed up by what reps are saying now that the election is over. The reason Bush was reelected was purely political. Republicans in vast numbers chose party over principle. Ironically that is the finger they usually point at democrats, but as ever it was hypocrisy at work. You could see this coming as the Rep convention did not champion Bush's actions or policies at all. You say Kerry didn't talk about Iraqi dead, where were the Reps talking about a specific issue of any kind? They carted out every color and every dog and pony and said this is all under our tent. Like a vote for Arnold or McCain was anything like a vote for Bush? Come on.So they rallied to secure a Republican win. Great. Now the election is over and the Republicans are doing exactly what I predicted... dividing along internal lines based on principles. They should have done so during the election. That is a shame and blame for them. In any case, Bush is not coming out of this unscathed.I do agree he is getting off to a degree which is shameful and embarassing for me as a US citizen and a human being, he should have lost the election, but that he wasn't does not mean the show is over and he has been proven right and wonderful.

---

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)

quote:

---

So you think by not involving yourself in politics at all (except maybe to rant at a protest) absolves you of responsibilty?

---

No, I AM involved in politics directly, a member of an activist party, and involved in local campaigns. But I, as a citizen, do NOT accept the legitimacy of bourgeois government, and do NOT engage with its process. that in fact is exactly why I am a member of my own this party. Whatever result that broken process produces cannot be laid at my door - I did not condone it in any way, shape or form, and its perpetartors cannot claim to have done anything my consent, tacit or active.

quote:

---

By non participation you are making Blair stronger as he has one less opposition vote to worry about. I am sure he would thank you for your non-participation.

---

Don't be silly - Labour is desperate to get their core vote out, among which I should be but am not. But secondly, your analysis is hopelessly naive - my non-participation does not make Blair stronger, but weaker - because even if he wins with a landslide, the actual quantity of consent he can claim to command has been reduced.This is all pretty politically naive, Mammathus.

quote:

---

This is a nice fiction you have chosen to believe to support your bigotry but it is not supported by fact...and unlike you, many of these people went to jail for their actions..and this was just the New York protests

---

Ha ha ha, and you think thats unusual, do you?Sigh. But even so the articles you link do not give turnout figures, which is a pity. For you. Becuase as a result you cannot use these articles to demonstrate that there is a significant quantity of protest - I acknowledged that there had been a few nominal protests already. Resistance is still trivial.

quote:

---

By having chosen to live in the UK instead of staying in South Africa you fully support the Blair government and are therefore responsible for all military actions carried out by the UK in Iraq....gee contracycle..this kind of puerile arguement devoid of logic is fun I suspect you maintain this view in a twisted way to justify your bigotry against Americans.

---

And... strike two! The above is peculiar argument, but a very American one. Unfortunately it has no basis in fact. Seeing as I had a British passport and no other, when I was fleeing consricption, surely I could only go to the nation in which I had a right to live? What else was I supposed to have done, Mammathus? This is the real world, not one of your imaginings in which anyone is free to go anywhere they want to, and thus by their selection can be construed as giving consent.This is in fact one of the most oft-used arguments of primitive patriotism, of the "if you don't like it leave" variety, but seeing as it is totally illogical and unreasonable from the get go, it demonstrates only how stupid your position is. No intelligent criticism can ever be advanced by this stupid argument.

quote:

---

owever, your presumptions are just that, presumptions. These people are not in power. You have not given any indication that you would not kill foreigners left and right if you had the power to do so...

---

Then you should pay more attention, shouldn't you? But let me guess - you already know that people who demonstrate and object to capitalism are mad, don't you?

quote:

---

in fact you have made it clear you would in advocating violence against anybody who disagrees with your social and political views...

---

Nonsense - I accpet the necessity of violence in the pursuit of liberty. Personal VIEWS have nothing to do with it - only actions.

quote:

---

how is what you are advocating any better? What compelling reason or promise of a better system have you ever presented that would draw people away from the one they are in?

---

Oh puhlease. Firstly this is off topic and a personal attack; secondly, I have presented much evidence; third, no one has yet mounted a cogent attack on my arguments, largely becuase nobody is familiar with that argument. Have you read Capital? No? What a suprise.

quote:

---

Not getting involved at all in politics as you have chosen? Ranting about the deficiencies of other protesters while claiming it a badge of honor that you show up to protests?

---

Firstly, I am deoirectly involved with politics, and going to demo's is most certainly is a badge of honour, and one I wear with pride. It demonstrates that I am full participant in our political life.

quote:

---

In any case, the protests in the US addressed quite a wide variety of problems presented by the Bush government. You are myopic in only choosing the Iraq war as the subject...Bush represents a danger to a much wider range of issues.

---

I am more than happy to discuss Americas many failings, political, moral and intellectual. BUT THIS TOPIC WAS ABOUT THE INDICTMENT OF BUSH AND BLAIR FOR WAR CRIMES, GEDDIT?

quote:

---

No, I AM involved in politics directly, a member of an activist party, and involved in local campaigns. But I, as a citizen, do NOT accept the legitimacy of bourgeois government, and do NOT engage with its process. that in fact is exactly why I am a member of my own this party. Whatever result that broken process produces cannot be laid at my door - I did not condone it in any way, shape or form, and its perpetartors cannot claim to have done anything my consent, tacit or active.

---

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. 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. You do not even have the excuse of having had the "misfortune" of having been born there...you ran to embrace the state.

quote:

---

Don't be silly - Labour is desperate to get their core vote out, among which I should be but am not. But secondly, your analysis is hopelessly naive - my non-participation does not make Blair stronger, but weaker - because even if he wins with a landslide, the actual quantity of consent he can claim to command has been reduced.

​

This is all pretty politically naive, Mammathus.

---

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.

quote:

---

Sigh. But even so the articles you link do not give turnout figures, which is a pity. For you. Becuase as a result you cannot use these articles to demonstrate that there is a significant quantity of protest - I acknowledged that there had been a few nominal protests already. Resistance is still trivial.

---

First, if resistance is trivial then why do you bother protesting at all? Or do you only consider it relevant if YOU protest? If so you live in a very small world.Here are some more numbers for you to chew on...maybe you would enjoy Ohnai's thread on numbers used in justification of belief?http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0420-08.htm
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/24/1542206
NathanNewman.org

quote:

---

And... strike two! The above is peculiar argument, but a very American one. Unfortunately it has no basis in fact. Seeing as I had a British passport and no other, when I was fleeing consricption, surely I could only go to the nation in which I had a right to live? What else was I supposed to have done, Mammathus?

---

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

quote:

---

how is what you are advocating any better? What compelling reason or promise of a better system have you ever presented that would draw people away from the one they are in?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Oh puhlease. Firstly this is off topic and a personal attack; secondly, I have presented much evidence; third, no one has yet mounted a cogent attack on my arguments, largely becuase nobody is familiar with that argument. Have you read Capital? No? What a suprise.

---

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

quote:

---

Firstly, I am deoirectly involved with politics, and going to demo's is most certainly is a badge of honour, and one I wear with pride. It demonstrates that I am full participant in our political life.

---

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. 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.

quote:

---

I am more than happy to discuss Americas many failings, political, moral and intellectual. BUT THIS TOPIC WAS ABOUT THE INDICTMENT OF BUSH AND BLAIR FOR WAR CRIMES, GEDDIT?

---

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) 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.

quote:

---

The major flaws in your position have already been revealed and dissected by Mammuthus, but let me put in a few points...

---

I'm dispointed, Holmes - Mamathus arguments were trivially easy to destroy and really are political kindergarten level. If he really thinks being a citizen implies consent he obviously doesn't understand even the most basic principles of political history. But anyway...

quote:

---

This is a deliberately naive view of how elections actually work.

---

Bullshit, it is most certainly NOT. An election that is not quorate has to be conducted again. Look it up if you don't know what "quorum" is.

quote:

---

The idea that Americans could not talk about Iraq casualties is a bit absurd, it would really depend on how they were discussed which could be a potential turnoff

---

Yes - and as was shown in the case of Kerry, ever admitting that Us troops do anything wrong immediately triggers a backlash of accusations of lack of patriotism. Thats whay it cannot be discussed electorally.

quote:

---

But the one thing I have learned in being outside the US and having had friends from all other parts of the world is that that criticism which is often lobbed against the US is actually a pretty common trait of all nations. A great example was the tsunami disaster where it seemed every nation was concerned about how many handfuls of their own citizens suffered when thousands of times that amount died in the region.

---

Help help we are being oppressed!Of COURSE criticism loobed against the US has echoes in other countries - but that is precisely becuase the US, unlike those other countries, considers itself above morality and law and so virtuous that it can do no wrong. Excessive regard for your own losses is common and normal; thats exactly the kind of concern that acts as a deterrent to unilateral military action, especially one based on alleged principles. BECAUSE this will occur reliably, you CANNOT send an army anywhere and expect them to treat the citizens or the enemy as they would themselves. Thats why its a bad idea to use armies as a tool of international diplomacy; the very act of doing so triggers an us-vs-them response.Once again, if criticisms like those levelled by Kerry are taken on board, the army would be used less, and less hypocritically. But as long as Kerry will be heavily attacked for admitting US troops are less than perfect, no such lessons will be learned, all enemies will
be demonised as the spawn of Satan and the death of any American soldier seen as an unforgivable outrage.The point is that the US exhibits the same lack of concern for other lives exhibited by, say, Rome. It's neither unusual nor uniquely American - thats the whole point.

quote:

---

took part in the largest demonstration this nation held since nuclear weapons protests of the 80's

---

And how big was that, pray tell?

quote:

---

Yes I do forget as you are apparently only involved with nominal, insignificant, beneath the radar, nowhere people that feed you nominal, insignificant, nothing information about what the US is like

---

Ha ha ha.

quote:

---

Blair is not threatened. I am just across the channel and watch the news.

---

Oh you watch the news, do you? Would this be the same news you insist is incapable of carrying any real insight into a foreign state, as you have perpetually insisted British news is incapable of doing in regards America? Hypocrite.

quote:

---

He has been buffeted a bit more than Bush has, but he is not in grave danger at all.

---

His poll lead was cut to only 5% today. And, he carries a personal negative rating in regards trust by the electorate. Brown is making his most prominent moves toward the leadership yet. Blair cannot be said to be finished yet, but threatened he certainly is.

quote:

---

I have been considering moving there as the Netherlands have gone into some paranoid lockdown mode and are now attacking themselves in order to be "free".

---

Well yes. They've been heading in that direction for some time.

quote:

---

You say Kerry didn't talk about Iraqi dead, where were the Reps talking about a specific issue of any kind? They carted out every color and every dog and pony and said this is all under our tent. Like a vote for Arnold or McCain was anything like a vote for Bush? Come on.

---

Fine - but I don't care about the rationalisations, I care about the fact that nobody thought it was an issue worth raising. In the UK, only the LibDems opposed the war, and they have reaped the rewards of credibility as a result. Kerry did not even seek to win those rewards - whether becuase he didn't care, or thought it would not fly with the electorate, does not matter. It remains the case that in the political culture of the US, foreign dead do not matter one bit.

quote:

---

So they rallied to secure a Republican win.

---

Yes - predictably so:They rally round tha family
With pockets full of shells
Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed tha war cannibal animal
- RATM

quote:

---

I do agree he is getting off to a degree which is shameful and embarassing for me as a US citizen and a human being, he should have lost the election, but that he wasn't does not mean the show is over and he has been proven right and wonderful.

---

And Inappreciate that view as your personal view. But unfortunately this is NOT a surprising developement in American politics. America lied in order to start the Vietnam war too; it demonised its critics, domestic and foreign; it claimed to be defending the south Vietnamese but treated them with contempt and alienated the whole country; they ran sham elections that commanded no credibility; and the main issue which excites Americans is the loss of American lives, not the incredible atrocity inflicted on the people of south east asia for no reason other than American pride.The invasion of Iraq is NOT an aberration from America's historical course. The intolerance of dissent, and the approval of a killer president, are not aberrations in American politics. Everything is operating normally. And I point out to you again, as I have before, that blaming Bush individually wholly misses the point - Clinton had domestic consent to bomb countires unilaterally too.