|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Well Hooray. Guardian Readers Will Tell Me How To Vote
|
Neep
Ship's Meerkat
# 5213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ship's Meerkat:
Americans, try and see it from our point of view. Our Prime Minister is reduced to kowtowing to a monkey outwitted by about 55% of his own country. We've been dragged into what is widely regarded as an immoral war as a consequence. That's not all, but you get the idea.
It's bloody embarrassing for us Brits.
So? How in the name of holy fuck is that our fault?
No, I wasn't saying it was your fault. It's ours, because we elected the sycophant. But it's reasonable for us to want the situation not to carry on, even if a certain newspaper gets the wrong idea about how to encourage this.
--------------------
"Your standing days are done," I cried, "You'll rally me no more!
I don't even know which side we fought on, or what for."
Posts: 293 | From: A burrow, in England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ship's Meerkat:
No, I wasn't saying it was your fault. It's ours, because we elected the sycophant. But it's reasonable for us to want the situation not to carry on
Patience Grasshopper. There'll be an election in the UK soon.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
duchess
Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Duchess, you think American troops in Iraq are going to raise those people from the dead? Next you'll explain the campaign of [edited out] for virginity. And what the holy cellulite-jiggling OZ-humping bible-thumping Hell does any of this have to do with this thread? Go masturbate and come back after you can think straight again.
<snip!>
Listen proud tosser, those people in graves are a darn good reason for us to be in the war, outside of any WMD debate, in themselves, God rest their souls. Go and beat yourself and have fun doing it.
[your obsession with sex is quite obvious. Hopefully your nurse is still around administraing you meds. You still need them.]
[ 14. October 2004, 19:19: Message edited by: duchess ]
--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party
Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Yes, someone argued that to me earlier, Duchess. Didn't buy it then, either.
RooK - I know you're Canadian (obviously) but I thought you might be naturalised.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
Yes, someone argued that to me earlier, Duchess. Didn't buy it then, either.
Why not? How do you suppose Saddam could be stopped from murdering more innocent people?
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
quote:
So this has nothing to do with your hoping to affect the election, it's just about you getting off on your own fantasy.
You are a bunch of pathetic wankers.
You have every right to be as stupid as you want, just as we have every right to tell you to fuck off and die.
Jerry Boam has hit the nail on the head. To run with his Boston Globe analogy, I have always been of the view that the moment we could decently reunite the bit of Ireland we foolishly hung onto in 1921 with the Republic, we should do so.
Had, at any point during the 1980s, I been in receipt of correspondence from some opinionated Bostonian, whose knowledge of the Irish problem derived from a folk memory about the potato famine and several choruses of 'the wearing of the green', brought on by drinking Guiness, exhorting me to end protestant hegemony in Ulster and end the British Imperialist Occupation, I would have been sorely provoked. A flurry of letters later and I would have been investing in an orange sash and bowler hat. You see Britain is my country. The Irish question is our problem and there is no better way to get any moderately patriotic person's back up than to have some opinionated foreigner telling one what to do.
As Americans have this same human reflex, I can only imagine that an attempt to persuade them to vote for Kerry by the readers of the Grauniad is going to have a similar effect. Admittedly Grauniad readers tend not to have patriotic reflexes and may not intuitively understand this. Trust me - if you want to provoke a swing voter to go for Bush write to him and tell him that in the name of world peace it his his duty to vote for Kerry.
In fact, If I were Karl Rove, I would be kicking myself that I had not thought of this myself and be on the phone to every left wing journal in Europe.
Which part of 'It's fucking stupid, don't do it' are people wrestling with.
(and the accumulator is running).
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
Can we be honest about Saddam? If his status as an evil murdering bastard was the reason we needed to go to war, then why didn't we go after North Korea, China, Syria, Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe?
Is it the quantity or the quality of the tortures and killings that requires immediate, half-witted, invasion by an inadequately small force?
The war was a colossal fuck up, whatever the reason.
The dead Kurdish babies in the killing fields don't change that.
None of this has any bearing on whether twits in the UK should send political spam to American voters. Don't like the UK's participation in the war? Think that there's a better candidate for PM than Blair? I believe you will have the opportunity to vote in your own elections.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Son of a Preacher Man
Shipmate
# 5460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
quote:
Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
Yes, someone argued that to me earlier, Duchess. Didn't buy it then, either.
Why not? How do you suppose Saddam could be stopped from murdering more innocent people?
You can't use Saddam murdering innocent Iraqis as justification for invading Iraq. We were very happy to let him bleed Iraq dry of young men when they were being used as cannon fodder against Ayatollah Khomeni's army. We did nothing when he suppressed the Shiites and Kurds after the first Gulf war.
You can't use 9/11 as justification for invading Iraq either.
Even Bush didn't do that. He sold us on the war with the weapons of mass destruction angle. Go back and read his 2003 State of the Union Address. There is not one word linking Saddam with the 9/11 attacks, but a flood of them about WMD.
It's only now, after the weakness of the WMD argument has been made known, that we are getting the "Well, we removed a brutal murderer and...oh yeah, he also was involved in 9/11" line.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Son of a Preacher Man:
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli:
quote:
Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
Yes, someone argued that to me earlier, Duchess. Didn't buy it then, either.
Why not? How do you suppose Saddam could be stopped from murdering more innocent people?
You can't use Saddam murdering innocent Iraqis as justification for invading Iraq. We were very happy to let him bleed Iraq dry of young men when they were being used as cannon fodder against Ayatollah Khomeni's army. We did nothing when he suppressed the Shiites and Kurds after the first Gulf war.
You can't use 9/11 as justification for invading Iraq either.
Even Bush didn't do that. He sold us on the war with the weapons of mass destruction angle. Go back and read his 2003 State of the Union Address. There is not one word linking Saddam with the 9/11 attacks, but a flood of them about WMD.
It's only now, after the weakness of the WMD argument has been made known, that we are getting the "Well, we removed a brutal murderer and...oh yeah, he also was involved in 9/11" line.
Why are there so many assholes around. WMD was one reason for the war. It was a pretty good reason at the time. Any world leader confronted with the sheer barbarism of 9/11 would start to get worried about the possibility of WMD reaching the hands of Osama Bin Laden from complete madmen like Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein spent 10 years pretending he had WMD when apparently he'd destroyed them (and there's still a heck of a lot about that that doesn't make sense). Everyone thought he had some stocks of WMD, including Hans Blix, including German, French, Russian and Chinese intelligence.
In addition to this the legal reason for going to war was the fact that Saddam Hussein was flouting the cease fire agreement of 1991 and subsequent UN resolutions. If some criminal gets out on parole and consistently breaks the law, they go back into jail. The fact is that 9/11 was the reason that the US gathered the political will to shove the genocidal monster back in jail - and for once I'm grateful to Tony Blair that he did the right thing.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Neep
Ship's Meerkat
# 5213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
None of this has any bearing on whether twits in the UK should send political spam to American voters. Don't like the UK's participation in the war? Think that there's a better candidate for PM than Blair? I believe you will have the opportunity to vote in your own elections.
Quite right. I look forward to exercising my right to vote accordingly, and not writing to any residents of the USA about their thoughts about doing likewise. None of which stops me me from hoping that Bush goes out on his ear, as indeed I would hope the rest of the world would be concerned if Thatcher somehow came back.
--------------------
"Your standing days are done," I cried, "You'll rally me no more!
I don't even know which side we fought on, or what for."
Posts: 293 | From: A burrow, in England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pob
Shipmate
# 8009
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Everyone thought he had some stocks of WMD, including Hans Blix...
who asked for more time to do his job, and was denied it, not by the UN but by Bush. Given time, he'd have concluded there weren't any, without having to bomb the country to bits.
quote:
In addition to this the legal reason for going to war was the fact that Saddam Hussein was flouting the cease fire agreement of 1991 and subsequent UN resolutions. If some criminal gets out on parole and consistently breaks the law, they go back into jail.
It's for the UN, not one or two nations, to decide if the resolutions have been broken to the extent that war is the best response, just as it's not for the officer on the beat to decide that someone's violated his parole and can therefore be locked up without further reference to the legal system.
I'm glad Saddam's gone. But I'm angry that he was removed with so much bloodshed and in a way that's likely to fuel international terrorism, and that the governments which overthrew him are happy to tolerate and even work with tyrants who are just as bad, with no hint of shame.
--------------------
As the expensive swimming trunks, so my soul longs after you.
Posts: 738 | From: Gloucestershire, and jolly nice it is too | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Son of a Preacher Man
Shipmate
# 5460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Falling Star:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing
It is. It can help prevent you from making the same mistake twice. If you are willing to swallow your pride and admit you made a mistake.
Back to the OP, it's crap like that that almost makes me glad I don't live in Ohio anymore, much as I miss it. Though I must say that I wonder what the good citizens of Clark County would do when an honest-to-goodness real life snail mail letter arrives from some other country. They probably won't open a single one. They'll round them all up for antrax testing, or, more likely, just burn them all.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Furthermore, Saddam Hussein spent 10 years pretending he had WMD when apparently he'd destroyed them (and there's still a heck of a lot about that that doesn't make sense). Everyone thought he had some stocks of WMD, including Hans Blix, including German, French, Russian and Chinese intelligence.
Oddly enough your comments in brackets struck me. It seems to me likely that Saddam needed to preserve his status as scourge of the US Imperialists in order to bolster his regime's shaky legitimacy and to prove to potentially dissident elements that he retained his cojones. Presumably he thought that 'doing a Gaddafi' was more of a threat to him internally than any US President might of been - ignoring the fact that Bush jr. was not a realpolitician like Bush snr. or a liberal internationalist like Clinton.
We will never know, I imagine, unless there is a draft of 'Time Has It's Epochs' or 'The Common Weal' by Saddam tucked in a bunker somewhere. I must say that, whilst I disagree with you about the merits of the war, under the circumstances it can hardly be denied that part of the responsibility for its outcome must be placed squarely at the feet of Saddam.
Mind you, in the days when I used to study diplomatic history I was a fully paid up member of the 'Soviet Union - nervous status quo power, rather than ubervillain bent on world dominance' school of thought. So those of you with more robust views on foreign policy can file me under 'hopeless appeaser'. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pob:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Everyone thought he had some stocks of WMD, including Hans Blix...
who asked for more time to do his job, and was denied it, not by the UN but by Bush. Given time, he'd have concluded there weren't any, without having to bomb the country to bits.
Blix simply couldn't have concluded that to everyone's satisfaction. Under the threat of troops amassing around his borders Saddam was beginning to comply with the weapons inspectors but he never fully complied. There would always have been doubt. In the world of real politik you simply can't keep troops prepared for an invasion on the borders for eternity - or to satisfy the French (a country which was hypocritically already busting sanctions). A pragmatic decision was taken not to delay.
quote:
quote:
In addition to this the legal reason for going to war was the fact that Saddam Hussein was flouting the cease fire agreement of 1991 and subsequent UN resolutions. If some criminal gets out on parole and consistently breaks the law, they go back into jail.
It's for the UN, not one or two nations, to decide if the resolutions have been broken to the extent that war is the best response, just as it's not for the officer on the beat to decide that someone's violated his parole and can therefore be locked up without further reference to the legal system.
I'm glad Saddam's gone. But I'm angry that he was removed with so much bloodshed and in a way that's likely to fuel international terrorism, and that the governments which overthrew him are happy to tolerate and even work with tyrants who are just as bad, with no hint of shame.
It was largely with the manpower, and the will, and the expense of the USA that the first Gulf War was conducted with the support of the UN and an international coalition built by the Americans. Under UN auspices nothing was then done for over a decade to ensure compliance with the ceasefire. During that time the Americans and the British, with little support had manned the no-fly zone while an increasing number of countries were undermining sanctions and the UN's Oil/Aid programme had been entirely subverted and corrupted. The UN is totally unable to take decisions of this nature for a variety of obvious reasons.
Put it this way. If the Metropolitan police lacked the resources or the will to put a consistent parole breaker back behind bars, would you have any objection to another arm of law enforcement taking those steps (say the SIS, or the Flying Squad)? That it seems to me is a more useful analogy.
I can understand your anger, but the Gulf war was a relatively bloodless conflict, the past couple of months have been pretty bloody but that is hardly surprising.
[Fixed quotes. Reasoning left broken.]
[ 14. October 2004, 21:23: Message edited by: RooK ]
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MadFarmer
Shipmate
# 2940
|
Posted
quote:
Fine. If you want to shaft everyone else as well as your own country, that's your prerogative.
You're right. It is duchess's prerogative. In fact, it's her right. And she has the right because she's a citizen of this country. duchess is voting for Bush, who I think will indeed give my country the shaft. As someone who wants Bush out of office, let me say I strongly resent this letter-writing campaign. It is offensive. duchess is an adult, and can make electoral decisions without the help of Guardian readers. (And, heh heh, she can also speak for herself - this rhetorical device of using her as a metonymy for every American makes it sound like I'm trying to speak for her, which I am not doing.)
Now, duchess, firmly as I support your right to vote for Chimpy McAWOL, I feel the need to point out that the Kurds were gassed by Saddam because Chimpy's daddy told them to rise up in rebellion against Saddam and left them out to dry when they did. Saddam gassed them because they retaliated, thinking we were going to support them in a revolution. We used them and those graves are testament not only to Saddam's murderous policies but ours as well.
Oh yes and Barabas is stupid.
That is all.
[ 14. October 2004, 22:07: Message edited by: MadFarmer ]
--------------------
Where have I been? Busy, busy.
Posts: 537 | From: Yellow Springs, OH, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
Oh good, the "bolster my argument with totally irrelevant facts" model helpfully supplied by Barabas is now gaining wider currency on the Ship. Just what we need.
Clinton's intervention in Northern Ireland: undisputed. Noraid funds and boatloads of weaponry sent off to support terrorists: sad, but true. Tell me again what this has to do with a newspaper encouraging individuals to send mail with voting instructions to Ohio?
The point that was made was that people in the USA have tried to influence politics in the UK you disputed that point with some drivel about the Boston Globe. I gave examples of the people from the US interfering in politics in the UK and you agree with me.
The precedent has long been set with people from one country involving themselves in another country. Chill out.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by N’ghtlamp:
The point that was made was that people in the USA have tried to influence politics in the UK you disputed that point with some drivel about the Boston Globe. I gave examples of the people from the US interfering in politics in the UK and you agree with me.
The precedent has long been set with people from one country involving themselves in another country. Chill out.
Dear Nightlamp, the reply was not directed at you specifically, but rather at The Undiscovered Country and anyone who thought that was a reasonable point...
But come on! "involve themselves!" Surely you are not suggesting that the morons who think it would be clever to send political exhortations to registered independents in Clark County, Ohio, are "involving themselves" in the affairs of the US in the same way that the morons who send guns and money to terrorists in Northern Ireland are "Involving themselves" in UK politics?
These things can't be cited as precedent because they are categorically different.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
But come on! "involve themselves!" Surely you are not suggesting that the morons who think it would be clever to send political exhortations to registered independents in Clark County, Ohio, are "involving themselves" in the affairs of the US in the same way that the morons who send guns and money to terrorists in Northern Ireland are "Involving themselves" in UK politics?
These things can't be cited as precedent because they are categorically different.
I agree they are different sending letters is so small as to be insignificant. But since they are are either involving themselves or not involving themselves they must be involving themselves since they are trying to change a political outcome. They might be unwanted but that's another matter.
If you want a another precedent how about the mutual support the Labour party and the Democrats have provided over the years and for that matter the Republicans and the Conservatives.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
I'm amazed that people are so wound up about the Guardian.
It's just a form of lobbying, where interest groups try to persuade those appointed to make a decision, to decide the way they want.
In this case US citizens have the vote and others want to influence them. So what? No-one is forcing anyone to vote a particular way. Democracy is not reduced.
IMO, honest appeals from ordinary people to US voters seems closer to the spirit of democracy than professional lobbyists paid by big business
to ease the way for their clients' causes with gifts and entertainment.
I don't think the Guardian is seriously expecting to have much influence.
We have a UK election in the not-too-distant future. I will be interested to see how people here react if others try to persuade us to vote a particular way.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
Sending guns and bombs is a very serious crime, with deadly and horrible consequences.
Sending letters is an insignificant piece of braindead fuckwittery, unlikely to have any effect other than pissing Americans off and tiping a few of the undecideds into the Bush camp.
"involving themselves" as a blanket term for both these activities is an unworthy linguistic figleaf.
I am a Democrat and pro-Labour party. I think the cooperation of Democrats and Labourites, like the cooperation of Republicans and Tories, is natural and positive, however awkward the result may be when Americans elect a complete idiot form one party and Brits elect a fairly decent PM from the opposite camp.
Seeing Blair adjust himself to Bush was tragic, like watching Powell adjust himself to Rumsfeld's coup.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MadFarmer
Shipmate
# 2940
|
Posted
quote:
In this case US citizens have the vote and others want to influence them. So what? No-one is forcing anyone to vote a particular way. Democracy is not reduced.
Fine. We'll make sure all the mail from the Guardian is forwarded to you.
quote:
IMO, honest appeals from ordinary people to US voters seems closer to the spirit of democracy than professional lobbyists paid by big business
to ease the way for their clients' causes with gifts and entertainment.
They're actually very similar.
--------------------
Where have I been? Busy, busy.
Posts: 537 | From: Yellow Springs, OH, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MadFarmer:
They're actually very similar.
The differences I can see are gifts and entertainment given by US businesses to sway decisions vs letters from foreign individuals.
A much bigger threat to democracy here is the that a US citizen owns a large influential part of the UK press and therefore has huge unelected power. Murdoch's blessing is sought by the main parties and they feel a need to please him. It rather dwarfs a few letters in foreign influence, I think.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace*
Shipmate
# 4754
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan.:
In fact, If I were Karl Rove, I would be kicking myself that I had not thought of this myself and be on the phone to every left wing journal in Europe.
Indeed, I had that very same thought. I drafted up a little International Post of my own, to the Guardian, telling them why I thought it was such a bad idea, and said that I thought Rove would be cackling maniacally. Actually I thought that he would pop a giant stiffy at the thought (esp. with the extra crunchy irony of having the lefties do his work for him), but was unsure whether that idiom was commonly understood trans-Pond. Perhaps some kind British shipmate could advise me on that matter? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Charlotte
--------------------
.sig on vacation
Posts: 2594 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corfe:
quote:
Originally posted by MadFarmer:
They're actually very similar.
The differences I can see are gifts and entertainment given by US businesses to sway decisions vs letters from foreign individuals.
A much bigger threat to democracy here is the that a US citizen owns a large influential part of the UK press and therefore has huge unelected power. Murdoch's blessing is sought by the main parties and they feel a need to please him. It rather dwarfs a few letters in foreign influence, I think.
Is there a new competition for "thickest of Britain" going on?
Has the pressure of gravity left a lattice of neutrons in place of normal matter between your ears? Is there any risk of collapse to a singularity? Such dense matter should not exist except in ancient. massive stars.
You are comparing the output of a media mogul's empire with individual communications sent directly to individual Americans. There is a difference, unless you want to call both activities "involvement" in the Nightlampian mode.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace*
Shipmate
# 4754
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corfe:
I'm amazed that people are so wound up about the Guardian.
It's just a form of lobbying, where interest groups try to persuade those appointed to make a decision, to decide the way they want.
In this case US citizens have the vote and others want to influence them. So what? No-one is forcing anyone to vote a particular way. Democracy is not reduced.
IMO, honest appeals from ordinary people to US voters seems closer to the spirit of democracy than professional lobbyists paid by big business
to ease the way for their clients' causes with gifts and entertainment.
I don't think the Guardian is seriously expecting to have much influence.
The election is close enough that every vote is important in the swing states (which will decide who wins the EC). It really is being micromanaged by the campaigns.
In this case, the lobbying idea is wooly-minded enough that it would swing things exactly opposite of the way that apparently was intended. Mind you, the Guardian could be interested in keeping George Bush to kick around for the next four years, in which case the whole thing makes twisted sense.
What part of "It's an amazingly stupid idea" is so incredibly difficult to understand?
Charlotte
--------------------
.sig on vacation
Posts: 2594 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MadFarmer
Shipmate
# 2940
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MadFarmer:
They're actually very similar.
A clarification: I meant that they are similar as regards whether or not they are in "the spirit of democracy."
--------------------
Where have I been? Busy, busy.
Posts: 537 | From: Yellow Springs, OH, USA | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Penelope Keith for President!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
And either Patricia Routledge or Dame Judi Dench for vice-president, I think....
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Once again, Jerry Boam, I find myself in agreement with you. Knock it off, will ya?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Neep
Ship's Meerkat
# 5213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
The election is close enough that every vote is important in the swing states (which will decide who wins the EC). It really is being micromanaged by the campaigns.
Bush has even dug the hole he's going to dump awkward ballot boxes into.
--------------------
"Your standing days are done," I cried, "You'll rally me no more!
I don't even know which side we fought on, or what for."
Posts: 293 | From: A burrow, in England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barrabas
Lifeman's sockpuppet
# 8632
|
Posted
I think I was taken a bit too literally in earlier posts when I suggested that Britain has a right to have a say in America's election.
However, the colonials call to revolution in the American War of Independence was 'no taxation without representation'. America's war in Iraq has cost Britain a great deal (not just in money but a massive loss of respect from the Arab world). I believe that Britain was forced into that war because she is so closely tied to America economically that whichever Prime Minister was in power, he or she would have been coerced into it.
Britain's long standing friendship with America will surely be effected if the US continues to use it's influence to bully the UK into actions which the majority of it's citizens abhore. At the moment, most of the UK is wary of closer European intergration but what if Bush is re-elected and Britian is forced into new wars with Syria or Iran (or even Nrth. Korea)? If this pushes the UK away from the 'special relationship' and into a Franco-German dominated Europe, the consequences for the world will be unlikely to be for the better.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barabas:
Not to forget that Ken Bigley would probably be alive today if America had't stepped in stop it's puppet rulers from releasing a woman scientist.
I think it was the great Emo Philips who said that it would be terrible if an insect laid its eggs in your head because one day you might think you were having a great idea, but really it was just the insects hatching.
I suspect this is what happened to you.
Look, it's quite simple (which is lucky, really, considering). If the women prisoners had been released for any reason while Ken Bigley was being held to ransom, the kidnappers would have assumed the coalition had acquiesced to their demands.
This would have opened the floodgates for terrorists to take hostages for ransom.
Once you negotiate with one terrorist you will negotiate with a hundred times more the next day. The only way to stop hostage taking is to never bow, or look like you're bowing, to the demands of a terrorist.
It's terrible for Ken Bigley's family, but there was no other way.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barabas:
I think I was taken a bit too literally in earlier posts when I suggested that Britain has a right to have a say in America's election.
However, the colonials call to revolution in the American War of Independence was 'no taxation without representation'. America's war in Iraq has cost Britain a great deal (not just in money but a massive loss of respect from the Arab world). I believe that Britain was forced into that war because she is so closely tied to America economically that whichever Prime Minister was in power, he or she would have been coerced into it.
Britain's long standing friendship with America will surely be effected if the US continues to use it's influence to bully the UK into actions which the majority of it's citizens abhore. At the moment, most of the UK is wary of closer European intergration but what if Bush is re-elected and Britian is forced into new wars with Syria or Iran (or even Nrth. Korea)? If this pushes the UK away from the 'special relationship' and into a Franco-German dominated Europe, the consequences for the world will be unlikely to be for the better.
As another Brit I have to tell you that the only thing we can do is vote and participate in British and European politics, which we do have a say in instead of wishing we had a say in the Presidential election. Howsabout we get a vote next time Mugabe comes up for election? Ariel Sharon? Whoever your bogeyman is this week?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barrabas
Lifeman's sockpuppet
# 8632
|
Posted
Intellect,
I agree with you about not bowing to terrorists
and they must never be seen to be influencing the rule of law.
However, in the case of those women scientists, it's different because they are being held (IMO) illegally. The was an illegal war, America was not being threatened by Iraq and has no right to detain it's citizens (especially when we've seen how they have been abused).
Posts: 74 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barabas:
I agree with you about not bowing to terrorists...however, in the case of those women scientists, it's different because they are being held (IMO) illegally.
It's not different in this case, and you are logically inconsistent.
Whether you believe it was an illegal war or not (and there are a lot of people who agree that it was), this does not give you carte blanche to be an ass.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barabas:
However, in the case of those women scientists, it's different because they are being held (IMO) illegally.
In that case, take up your complaint with the Iraqi interim government (such as it is). They're held in Iraqi jails, with Iraqi guards, awaiting trial in Iraqi courts for crimes against Iraqi citizens (specifically assisting in the development of chemical weapons deployed against the Kurds and others).
I don't see how spamming the good citizens of Ohio will make much difference to how Iraqi law is enforced.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
That's it.
I'm going to become a Brit and vote for Thatcher in the next election.
Charmed as I am sure we would all be to have you on board, Mad Geo, you won't be able to vote for Lady Thatcher because we made her a peer of the realm. They, together with lunatics, aliens etc. cannot be elected to Parliament.
I wouldn't like to think of you coming all this way only to be disappointed.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barabas:
[SNIP]...
Britain's long standing friendship with America will surely be effected if the US continues to use it's influence to bully the UK into actions which the majority of it's citizens abhore. At the moment, most of the UK is wary of closer European intergration but what if Bush is re-elected and Britian is forced into new wars with Syria or Iran (or even Nrth. Korea)? If this pushes the UK away from the 'special relationship' and into a Franco-German dominated Europe, the consequences for the world will be unlikely to be for the better.
Sorry, but WTF are you trying to say here? Seems to be some cross between Grauniad and Daily Mail politics to me... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barabas:
I believe that Britain was forced into that war because she is so closely tied to America economically that whichever Prime Minister was in power, he or she would have been coerced into it.
I believe that economically (not to mention politically and culturally) Britain is much more closely tied to the rest of Europe than we are to the US. And, the rest of Europe wasn't all that keen on the war (was Spain the only other European nation to send troops?).
quote:
Britain's long standing friendship with America will surely be effected if the US continues to use it's influence to bully the UK into actions which the majority of it's citizens abhore.
For a start I don't think the UK was bullied by the US. I believe that Bliar went into the war firmly believing it to be the right thing to do - though, as you pointed out, a large proportion of the population disagreed with him. Though just how strongly the people disagree will be clear come the election - if the majority of UK citizens think the war was as abhorent as you imply then Bliar doesn't have a chance, though it looks like he does which rather ruins your argument.
quote:
If this pushes the UK away from the 'special relationship' and into a Franco-German dominated Europe, the consequences for the world will be unlikely to be for the better.
I don't think the EU is that strongly dominated by France and Germany; the UK has a substantial voice, as do the Scandinavian countries; the new members will be a strong influence (though they may have to act together a bit to take full advantage of their influence), and many small countries punch above their wait (eg Ireland).
And, even if the EU was as Franco-German dominated as you think, would closer UK ties with Europe be a bad thing? Why?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barrabas
Lifeman's sockpuppet
# 8632
|
Posted
Alan
There are two reasons why Tony Blair has a gpd chance of being re-elected -
1) A good reocrd on the economy and employment
2) The opposition is even more US - leaning (certain Tories have advocated leaving the EU and joining NAFTA!!)
Re. Europe, I love the concept of a united Europe, in principle but I am pessamistic that the main powers will continue to selfishly try to manipulate Europe for their own ends. Eg. I am in principle in favour of the Euro but look how Germany (and I think France) have flouted the rules on which the currency is based!
Posts: 74 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Look folks, it wasn't about those women scientists.
The thugs who kidnbapped the engineers had possibly never even heard of them - and if they has it wasn't them they were talking about.
We aren't the audience for their terrorism. The people they are playing to are the disaffected Arab Muslims. Who, in their view, just Somehow Know that the US and the UK and their Zionist mercenaries are holding hundreds - thousands - tens of thousands - of innocent Muslim Arabs, men and women, in concentration camps and torturing and raping and starving them.
The demand to release the women prisoners was a deliberatly impossible demand, intended to show the Arabs how recalcitrant the Americans are.
If those scientists had been released (which should have happened months ago) they would just have demanded that all the other women prisoners be released. Whether there were any or not.
The only way to free those US & UK prisoners would have been to pay millions of dollars, which would just have been used to organise the next terrorist attack.
Or, just possibly, to ally with some of the extreme Shia groups (& maybe even with Iran) and see if we couldn't shoot our way in. Which would almost certainly have resulted in them getting killed anyway.
But the demands weren't meant to be fulfilled. They were meant to show up the US or the UK getting humiliated by the kidnappers, as a publicity stunt to increase their influence in Iraq. That's why this nonsense about a personal appeal to Mr. Blair was broadcast.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Intellect by Proxy:
quote:
Once you negotiate with one terrorist you will negotiate with a hundred times more the next day. The only way to stop hostage taking is to never bow, or look like you're bowing, to the demands of a terrorist.
No. You should not bow to terrorists but neither should you refrain from doing something which is right or prudent merely because it gives the impression that you are bowing to terrorists.
If terrorists can make governments behave in a stupid and autocratic manner that is as big a defeat for democracy and the rule of law, as if they make governments act in a cowardly and unprincipled manner.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IntellectByProxy
Larger than you think
# 3185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan.:
Originally posted by Intellect by Proxy:
quote:
The only way to stop hostage taking is to never bow, or look like you're bowing, to the demands of a terrorist.
No. You should not bow to terrorists but neither should you refrain from doing something which is right or prudent merely because it gives the impression that you are bowing to terrorists.
No.
In the Bigley case it might have helped his release. I don't think it would, but it might.
But then it would have looked exactly like the ransom had been paid, which would have set a precedent and ten hostages would have been taken the next day.
It's awful for Ken and his family (and I hope that if I were in his family's position I'd think as I do now), but the message had to be sent that hostage-taking is not a tool for political change.
--------------------
www.zambiadiaries.blogspot.com
Posts: 3482 | From: The opposite | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I'm not convinced that it would have helped his release either. Nor am I certain that it was the right thing to do. But I do believe very strongly that if it had been right and appropriate it should have been done, even if it happened to be a terrorist demand.
It is one thing to allow a hostage to die in order to preserve the principles of good government and the rule of law. It is another to allow someone to die merely in order to look hard, which is what you appear to be suggesting.
A hypothetical suggestion. Supposing someone is detained under emergency legislation of some sort. Suppose a hostage is taken and demands for the release are made. Suppose, in the mean time, it has been decided independently that the person should be released. Should one, therefore, overrule that decision in order not to give aid and comfort to the terrorists? Of course not. It is the right thing to do, even though terrorists are demanding it. If you keep the person in prison you are altering your policies in the face of terrorist demands, just as much as if you released a convicted criminal in order to get back a hostage.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barrabas
Lifeman's sockpuppet
# 8632
|
Posted
Callan,
The holding of the women scientists is now symbolic of the lack of rule of law in Iraq.
The 'independent' government of the people of Iraq wanted to release at least one of them.
The American conquerers forbade this, demonstrating what a farce these puppet regimes are!
Posts: 74 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam:
quote:
Originally posted by Corfe:
quote:
Originally posted by MadFarmer:
They're actually very similar.
The differences I can see are gifts and entertainment given by US businesses to sway decisions vs letters from foreign individuals.
A much bigger threat to democracy here is the that a US citizen owns a large influential part of the UK press and therefore has huge unelected power. Murdoch's blessing is sought by the main parties and they feel a need to please him. It rather dwarfs a few letters in foreign influence, I think.
Is there a new competition for "thickest of Britain" going on?
Has the pressure of gravity left a lattice of neutrons in place of normal matter between your ears? Is there any risk of collapse to a singularity? Such dense matter should not exist except in ancient. massive stars.
You are comparing the output of a media mogul's empire with individual communications sent directly to individual Americans. There is a difference, unless you want to call both activities "involvement" in the Nightlampian mode.
Jerry, I usually respect your views as intelligent so I'll assume you have misunderstood me.
I was contrasting a few personal letters as a way of swaying opinion, against professional lobbyists representing big business interests. MadFarmer said he thought they were similar so I pointed out some differences. I'm saying that they are both attempts to influence people but they're not the same. One big difference is that lobbying on behalf of business becomes corruption if gifts are given. Personal letters can only compete if presents are enclosed. Chocolate anyone?
Then I said that in Britain there is a much bigger erosion of democracy: a US citizen who owns British newspapers and can influence public opinion by the way the news is reported. Tony Blair needs this man's continued goodwill to avoid slipping further in public opinion. This large scale influence of millions and the likely desire of TB not to have policies which annoy this man, makes a few hundred letters (if it gets as big as that) seem pretty insignificant by comparison.
Amazing Grace said:
quote:
In this case, the lobbying idea is wooly-minded enough that it would swing things exactly opposite of the way that apparently was intended.
Could, not would. Not many will bother to write these letters (I won't be writing) and most people who receive them will probably ignore them. Only the very stupidest recipients will say to themselves "if these people want X, I'll vote for Y; that'll show them" as no-one will see how they vote. Most will say "well, that's their view but I'm voting for X".
quote:
What part of "It's an amazingly stupid idea" is so incredibly difficult to understand?
Charlotte, I don't particularly support the Guardian scheme but saying you think it's a stupid idea doesn't make it true, even in Hell. Come on, you can do better.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
Corfe, I am in the middle of a project that requires very high levels of concentration and energy in random burst throughout the day. This means I'm often left sitting with nothing to do, but in a very keyed up state. Hence my visits to Hell and gentle, considerate self expression here. Please don't take my hyperbolic merriment as anything personal.
That said...
You raise two interesting facts. By virtue of their wealth, corporations can influence politicians in a way private citizens cannot. Media Moguls can influence large numbers of people.
Neither of these constitutes an erosion of democracy.
If you don't like these influences, vote in politicians who will enact laws to limit them. The vote is still yours.
And do you really think Blair is afraid of pursuing an agenda that will offend Murdoch? Every position of the Labour government except the war is inimical to Murdoch. Surely, if your theory was correct, Blair would sound more like Thatcher or Enoch Powell?
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
OK... given the context I may regret this, but I'm going to [try to] be [relatively] reasonable about this.
When I first heard about the Guardian letter-writing campaign, it sounded like a sane enough idea to me. Apparently, though, this is because I'm a civilised human being.
You see, I would have no problem whatsoever with receiving a personal letter from someone outside the UK giving their opinions on the forthcoming election, even if it exhorted me to vote for someone I wasn't going to. This would apply particularly if the letter was from someone in a country which was strongly affected by UK foreign policy -- Iraq, say, or Afghanistan -- as I would consider people in these countries to have a legitimate interest in the makeup of the British government.
Of course it goes without saying that I'd be unlikely to change my vote unless they were very persuasive; but I wouldn't (and nor, I honestly believe, would most of the Britons I know) react in the hysterical way exhibited by some of the US posters on this thread. Just to repeat -- the Guardian proposal is for polite, tactful, moderately-worded and above all individual correspondence with selected undecided US voters. To call such a correspondence "spam" (unsolicited though it may be), or to refer to anybody "telling" anybody else "how to vote" is wilful misrepresentation.
However, during the course of this thread it has become clear to me that the campaign is, indeed, a very bad idea -- if, that is, the visceral reactions we've seen displayed are any indication of how the average American is likely to react. I'll gladly admit that, on the evidence, I appear to have radically overestimated the open-mindedness of the average US voter.
(I did actually visit the Guardian site and get allocated a Clark County voter, but I won't be writing to him now. Yes indeed, that's one citizen who's been protected from the unthinkably horrific experience of exposure to someone else's opinion.)
So, I'll return to quietly panicking about the fact that the individual with the strongest influence over how my country is governed is shortly going to be appointed, entirely without my control or consent, by a bunch of foreigners... who appear, again going by the evidence displayed in this thread, to include a startlingly high proportion of cretinous xenophobes.
Have a nice election, guys.
[ 15. October 2004, 14:09: Message edited by: Atmospheric Skull ]
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Atmospheric Skull:
I wouldn't (and nor, I honestly believe, would most of the Britons I know) react in the hysterical way exhibited by some of the US posters on this thread.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily be hysterical. But if I were to get such a letter my first response would be "bloody cheek", followed by throwing it in the bin (perhaps having removed any stamps as various charities collect them as fund raisers). If it was clearly a coordinated campaign then I might, if I had time and could be bothered, consider writing a letter of complaint.
quote:
So, I'll return to quietly panicking about the fact that the individual with the strongest influence over how my country is governed is shortly going to be appointed, entirely without my control or consent, by a bunch of foreigners... who appear, again going by the evidence displayed in this thread, to include a startlingly high proportion of cretinous xenophobes.
Take cover!
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
