Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
| Subject: You know not of what you speak | |
Author: Trixta (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 21:04:52 11/03/04 Wed In reply to: Jim (Canada) 's message, "It's interesting to see the difference between Brits and Canadians here" on 21:04:04 11/02/04 Tue Excuse me - you've got that very wrong. Most Brits, including 99% of the governing party, despise and fear Bush and his policies. Most Brits are also against the Iraq war (the largest demonstration London has seen was a bit of a giveaway). We do, it is true, feel that now that the can of worms has been opened we have a responsibility not to cut and run (another difference from the yanks) but we mostly opposed the war. Only our sycophantic little Prime Minister wanted the war and, as has been shown since, doctored the evidence to convince us we had no choice but to go in before the infamous WMDs, which were supposedly 45 minutes from deployment against us, were used. Don't confuse a sense of responsibility with a desire for war. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: I agree | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:02:57 11/03/04 Wed I agree [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I don't agree! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:10:37 11/04/04 Thu Most people in Britain did support the war, albeit by a slender majority. Even know, after Abu Ghraib, the beheading of that poor Bigley fellow, and the controvertial deployment of our troops in the US Zone, the polls indicate that barely 50% of British people think that the war was a bad idea - and this at the lowest point of popularity for the Neo-Con global agenda. As for the size of the Anti-War protest in London, I believe that the Anti-Foxhunting Ban Protest in London was in fact our largest ever demonstration - and about 70% of people want to see foxhunting made illegal. THis shows, surely, that you can not guage public opinion by measuring the decibels of protest groups. Silent majorities and all that. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: and... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:22:30 11/04/04 Thu The probably hired the same rent-a-mob for every demonstration in the country... I'm watching "Question Time" just now, and the look of consternation on the faces of the hand-wringing liberals in the light of Bush's win is quite entertaining. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh gawd | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:32:34 11/04/04 Thu I may not like being an expat... deprived of bangers and mash, buying things with Euros, getting flooded and snowed upon, etc. etc., but one thing which I will never miss is bloody Question Time. I saw today's Mirror headline online: "How can 59,987,563 people be so dumb?" Given that this number is earily close to the British population, I'm inclined to think that, from the evidence of Question Time, they may have been refering to the UK, and not to the Americans who voted for Dubya. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That can't be the Mirror's circulation surely? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:35:09 11/04/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Nope | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:36:20 11/04/04 Thu I believe that the combined readership of the Independent, Guardian and Mirror is less than that of the Telegraph alone. There is, perhaps, hope for us yet... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Obviously because... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:37:45 11/04/04 Thu Readership implies you can read :-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Reading... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:40:19 11/04/04 Thu I can read in a dozen languages and half a dozen alphabets, but I still can't read the Guardian! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Have they gone tabloid yet? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:43:16 11/04/04 Thu lol - I was wondering if they might try and increase their circulation in the fish'n'chip shops? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:47:32 11/04/04 Thu I understand that new regulations forbid the use of newspapers to wrap fish and chips, becuase of the potential health risks accruing from the contamination of food by the ink. I think that this is not a Euro-bonkers law, but is home-grown lunacy. Speaking of fish and chips, though, a British friend of mine lives in Seattle, and when she gets desperate she drives over the Canadian border where there are fish 'n' chip places rather than hot-dog stalls. Isn't that marvellous? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: weird | |
|
Author: Kevin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:03:35 11/07/04 Sun You have an odd friend. Although I feel the same way sometimes. But there are plenty of Irish/ British pubs in Seattle if you just look. Not to mention the one or two Irish/ British stores where you can buy aero bars, flakes, sausages and all that good stuff. Although since the mad cow disease, i'm not sure if they still carry sauages. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: good god | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:11:29 11/07/04 Sun Are you saying you cant normally get aero bars in the USA? I am disgusted. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sausages? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:08:17 11/07/04 Sun Hm. How can mad cow disease affect pork sausages? And many of my friends are odder than you might think! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: oh for such a border | |
|
Author: Ian (Porto Alegre) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:50:52 11/04/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I tried to read the guardian once... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:04:30 11/05/04 Fri I was ill for a week after! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: On reflection I do not agree. | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:41:02 11/05/04 Fri "We do, it is true, feel that now that the can of worms has been opened we have a responsibility not to cut and run (another difference from the yanks) but we mostly opposed the war. Only our sycophantic little Prime Minister wanted the war and, as has been shown since, doctored the evidence to convince us we had no choice but to go in before the infamous WMDs, which were supposedly 45 minutes from deployment against us, were used." I only read this part very quickly and missed the rest (late night posting). I would say that most people, with the benefit of hindsight probably correctly, did mis-trust the OFFICIAL REASONS for going to war. Part of the reason that I am so pissed-off with TB is that he asked the British nation to give him the benefit of the doubt over WMD which as a conservative type of fellow I did. If the British P.M. & the President of the U.S. tell me that there is (undisclosable) inteligence on Ws of M D and ask me to support military action as the only solution then I will rally around the flag no matter how much I detest the actual man in power. I would say that most people in Britain did not "support" the war openly, rather they accepted that there was a need for it. The fact that France said in advance that she would veto ANY U.N. resolution that proposed military action greatly helped people in this country to sympathise with our Government's position. Subsequently our infamously glib primeminister said the week after the invasion began in reply to a question about why the dagerous weapons had not yet been seized: "because our priority is to protect the Iraqi PEOPLE!" Ever since he has given a different justification for the war every week and never repeated the original WMD issue. Iraq is better-off without that Baathist upstart ruling it. It will hold at least one democratic election before it falls back into chaos. Yes these are fine things for Iraq. If our P.M. had said quite openly that he wished to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussain Al-Tikriti for the benefit of the ordinary Iraqis or some other really silly nonsense then that would have been fine. It is a question of being honest. If I were asked whether I am in favour of the war in Iraq I would say "yes", (despite the idiocy of the question) as would more that 50% of people in this country. This is because overall I think that has been, as 1066 and All That would put it, a "good thing". This poll would not reflect upon how people feel about the sad issue of trust with the government which has blatantly deceived british citizens, despite the legalistic reports about the intelligence. This government has no honour. I never thought that they did before but they never pretended to before. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Self-defence versus regime change | |
|
Author: Trixta (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 04:15:06 11/06/04 Sat Like all sane people the world over I agree that getting rid of Saddam and his mates is a good thing. One less madman in power always is. However, even had our lying, two-faced, spin-happy assurance salesman Blair cited this as a reason I would have had to oppose the war. Not for some lofty ideal about 'who are we to say who is a madman' (hell, we've more than enough of our own I'd like to see replaced or, better still, tried) - but for the oh so simple rationale that where would we stop? Saddam is bad, therefore we should remove him militarily. Okay. But what of the others? Africa has its fair share of lunatic tyrants, so does Asia, the Americas and of course, Europe's not immune either. Australasia seems reasonable (though from what little I know of Howard I still get a skin-crawling sensation that he's not a particularly pleasant person - hey, don't shoot me. I live on the other side of the world and most of what I've heard of him is about supporting Bush blindly and setting his special forces on immigrants). We fell into this trap centuries ago - 'These people are backward/evil/savage/unchristian and so it is our moral duty to impose our progress/goodness/civilisation/morality upon them by force if necessary' and their leaders are barbarian warlords. It's called colonialism. The Neo-Con US has taken exactly the same approach with a new lexicon: for colonisation read regime change, for war read decisive action, for savage read anti-democratic and for civilisation read democracy. Some of the spiel I've heard from the 'crazies' of Dubya's team (who even his Dad kept at arms length as he thought they were mad) include a particular favourite: "The United States has never, ever waged war against a decent country." Oh, well, if they're indecent that's all right. Now what we are seeing in the US is the establishment of puritan-style Christain fundamentalism at the highest political level - exactly the sort of religious zeal we are waging war upon but, crucially, the targets are the unbelievers: whether it is democracy, globalisation, US imperialism, the west or Christ that they choose not to believe in. As for TB, inquiries and his approach to truth: Hutton said that the BBC were wrong to say the dodgy dossier had been sexed up and Tony was completely innocent. Butler said that the intelligence received at no 10 was not exactly the same as that that came out of no 10, it had had the unattractive caveats removed. Or, to put it in spin-speak, had been sexed up by Downing Street. Oh, and Tony was completely innocent. You just know that Tb's tombstone will read "He did it in good faith" - so did Hitler, I'm sure. Personally, as someone from Northern Ireland I've known all along that what TB says and what is the truth rarely even catch sight of one another, let alone cross paths. What really scares me is that, in light of the cost of TB's lies in financial, libertarian and bodycount terms, the Tories' toe-sucking, orgy-ridden scandals are starting to look positively tame and, dare I say it, more British than the US style lies and spin that have seen hundreds of our soldiers killed & maimed and untold hundreds of thousands of poor bloody Afghans and Iraqis slaughtered. In the end I ask myself: Would I buy a used car from Tony Blair? Not if I had a family, that's for damn sure. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |