BS: Labour's shame

Subject: BS: Labour's shame
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 06:57 PM

Once again Labour Party MP's in Westminster have disgraced the men who founded the Party and the activists who embody the founding principles.

Given the chance to vote in favour of an independent inquiry into the invasion of Iraq and its horrific aftermath, only twelve Labour MP's supported the motion.
Given the chance to expose the guilty men still in government who have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and the deaths of many of our own young troops, these Labour cowards many of whom believe the invasion to be one of the worst foreign policy disasters in decades, prefer to preserve their parliamentary seats than have the truth come out at last.

This government has made the word "Labour" a synonym for hypocricy and no thinking person should consider giving his vote to the party while these people remain within it.

Thankfully Scotland shows signs at last of embracing independence so perhaps we can free ourselves not only of the "Union", but the murderous stench of a cabinet and party drenched in innocent blood...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Peace
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 07:02 PM

Let's hope that the same doesn't happen in the US. Bush and Cheney have to be called to account, but alas poor Yorick . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Leadfingers
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 07:03 PM

The Labour Party was born out of the Socialist movement -In the manifesto for the 1997 election 'New' Labour dropped all mention of Socialism . I rest my case .

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Shiamsa
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 09:28 PM

Couldn't agree more--sheer hypocrisy. Hope they are dumped out at the next election. Better still, they should be dumped into the hell they created in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Oct 06 - 11:53 PM

"...But they still sing the Red Flag once a year" - that's all right then.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 02:53 AM

New Labour ? new bloody tory more like.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 03:14 AM

I've lost friends over this. They will not see that the Labour Party that they joined 50 years ago isn't the same party now, and if you try to talk to them, start a mantra about some minor money- shuffling exercise like child benefit. I can't say we would be better off with the Tories- we've GOT the tories. But I can't see anyone to vote for (as distinct from against) should there be an election in the next few years.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 04:36 AM

To Paul Burke,

Then vote 'against' - it's better than not voting - which far too many people advocate.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 07:54 AM

A few more years of this, and the tories will actually be able to propose some proper polices that even this Labour Party can't steal, and not be shouted down as sucessors to Attila the Hun.

Labour isn't working, but we can't get rid of them for a few years. Some areas may be improving slowly, but there are big problems not being adressed. It's going to be 1994-7 all over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,Janine
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 10:17 AM

Very well said Akenaten. But who do we vote for next time? David Cameron voted for the war; the Chinaman (unlike naughty but nice Charles K) was ambivalent. And Labour isn't any more. It's no good the polititians saying 'if I had known what I know now...'. We can all say that about many things At the time if the voted for the war they were either warmongers or gullible and I for one don't want either type to run the country. Robin Cook's death was a real tragedy: he would have been a certain rallying point.
Am I cross!
Janine
PS How's Nefertiti?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 02:43 PM

Well Janine, my advice is don't vote.
All the political parties are wedded to Capitalism ....even the Socialists.
They boast about the employment figures, but fail to show the people how they are being conned by the "money trick".
Turning people into slaves, no matter how prosperous these slaves are , doesn't seem to me to be the proper function of any govt.

I believe in less govt....not the Old Tory Mantra, in which less govt means more chances for the powerful to rob the weak, but a spiritual , non religious ideology, which encourages us to enjoy and protect the natural word around us and above all promotes happiness and fulfillment in our lives rather than wealth and power.

To my mind,a thousand dead end jobs in some god forsaken call centre somewhere in the UK, don't come anywhere near equating to the death of one child in a co-alition air strike in Iraq.
Especially if that child is murdered in my name.

Blair and his cabinet are criminals.   He will soon leave politics, write his memoirs, accept multiple directorships....After a decision which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands.....and we will accept it like sheep.
If this "democracy" is worth saving for our children and grandchildren, the people who said "Trust us, we are regular sorts of guys", then led us into a bloody hunt for personal glory should be made to face the music.


Thank you for your kind inquiry regarding my wife, who fortunately is in the underworld...safe from the blandishments of "Tarnished Tony".
Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,Cripple Creek
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 05:02 PM

I'll say one thing akenoninony, you don't know when you're beaten.

Go and read the Euston manifesto - it should give you food for thought.

Still supporting that lunatic Galloway?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 06 - 09:21 PM

Thanks CC, but this "loose group of democrats" seem to have spent too much time in that pub in Soho.

When are you going to realise that Capitalism is really unsustainable. No matter how much intensive care is administered by liberals and progressives, the corpse has already started to rot and nature will soon wipe away all trace of it.

The few hundred years that span the rise and fall of Capitalism are as nothing in the life of the planet, but nature is telling us that if we continue to attempt to destroy it,.....It will destroy us...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 06:14 AM

Shimrod, the right to vote, of which you are so proud, is there to make you think you're calling the shots. It allows you to express a preference btween the available candidates. If your chosen candidate is outside the national parties (eg the "vote for yourself party" which appropriately enough polled one vote in Cardiff last time) your vote will almost certainly be wasted. If (in the UK and US) you vote for a national-party candidate who wins or loses by a big margin, your vote has been wasted. If in the UK you vote for a candidate with a party that has no prospect of gaining a parliamentary majority or balance-of-power minority, your vote counts for nothing in terms of national governance. And it is perfectly feasible (and it happens) that the party that does achieve a parliamentary majority does so with a minority of the votes cast.

To quote the title of a book by Ken Livingstone: "If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it."

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 07:11 AM

I wish that all those people who advocate not voting would think about the possible consequences of not doing so for a moment.
Voting may not change anything but I believe that not voting could possibly lead to something far worse.

I've said all this before, in another thread, but I'll say it again.

Just humour me and think about this question for a moment: What would happen to a democratic country if everyone in that country decided not to exercise their right to vote?

I can think of some possible outcomes:

- The politicians realise the error of their ways and start being 'nice' to the electorate.

- The politicians tell their masters in Big Business that it's time the electorate got a look in for a change.

- Some powerful group of businessmen and generals realise that there's a power vacuum and stage a coup. We then all languish under a military dictatorship for several generations.

I may be a cynical old sod by I sort of suspect that the last of these (or something similar) may be the most likely outcome.

You see, although I freely acknowledge that our democracy leaves much to be desired (and I'm fully aware that this is something of a monstrous understatement!). I also believe that the right to vote still has enormous symbolic importance and we should not give it up lightly - and certainly not of our own free will - which is what we are doing if we don't vote!!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 12:00 PM

"You see, although I freely acknowledge that our democracy leaves much to be desired (and I'm fully aware that this is something of a monstrous understatement!). I also believe that the right to vote still has enormous symbolic importance and we should not give it up lightly - and certainly not of our own free will - which is what we are doing if we don't vote!!"

Well said Shimrod. It's the best of the worst and so is organising inside the Labour Party. Nothing much that any individual does makes much difference in a decent democracy - that is the nature of democracy.

All those above can take their ball home or appeal to a lost age of socialism, fine but doing nothing is in fact doing nothing. If the Socialists can descibe or give examples of what they mean that would help a bit. I have called my self a socialist for around 40 years and I haven't really come across a coherent collection of proposals or concrete examples of it working in practice.

Billy Bragg said something good the other nihgt:

Neither New Labour nor Old Labour - but Organised Labour.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 12:02 PM

And I guess or ought to say I am ashamed of some of the things my Party in Government have done and so are lots of other members.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 12:39 PM

Les you have every right to be ashamed of your party which is led by a liar and if we give Blair the benefit of the doubt and allow that he was fed lies by the US over WMDs, then if not a liar a bloody fool.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 12:57 PM

Fair enough ard, my forever point in threads of this nature is:

What do we do?

1. Nothing
2. Something

I go for 2.
And I think the majority of people in the Labour Party are honest and they want some thing different and so do I and I don't see engines of change outside the Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 02:35 PM

Hi Les,

I wonder if the real reason that you "don't see engines of change outside the party" is because so many members of the electorate are so bloody apathetic - the real reason so many of them don't vote!

There's an interesting article, by Johann Hari, in today's Independent. Apparently in the US States of Arizona and Maine, legislation has been introduced to ensure that political parties aren't funded by Big Business. According to Hari, "ordinary Americans gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures to force the proposal onto the ballot paper". And next week, "the people of California will vote on Proposition 89, the Clean Money and and fair Elections Act".

Perhaps it's time we started to learn some lessons from our brothers and sisters across the Pond. At least they seem to have grasped the nettle and done something positive.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 02:51 PM

Sounds like a good idea to me.

I recognise the role of single issue groups like CND and Amnesty but we still need a party to pull ideas together.

I think, as most people do, that Blair got it wrong on Iraq and that he has no time for the democratic role of party memebers, but most leaders didn't much either, and that's bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: ard mhacha
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 05:07 PM

I watched that debate on the need to have an inquiry on Iraq, and to see those creeps on the Labour benches sitting on their wallets shit-scared to oppose the lying bastards they call leaders,rubber-gub Beckett spouting out a load of lies about the Brits involvment in this disastrous quagmire, what a parcel of creeps a true labour man must be cringing looking at these miserable excuses for humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 05:30 PM

The fact is though that there must be thousands and thousands of people who are still voting Labour because they have always voted Labour, and their parents voted Labour etc., etc. And, yes, there are also thousands and thousands of bast ..., sorry people, who vote Tory because they've always voted Tory etc., etc.

It is my considered opinion that, in today's climate, it only makes sense to OPPOSE the mainstream parties. I used to be a Labour voter but now I vote for the Lib Dems (and work for them at election time). Frankly, though, I only have the haziest idea about what the Lib Dems stand for - and don't really care. If (big if!) they ever get into power I have no doubt that they too will instantly sell out to Big Business - so I will then have to oppose them.

I am aware that the strategy that I am proposing is, in many ways, a 'council of despair' - but I prefer to see it as a pragmatic response to existing conditions and I can only look forward to a time when I can exercise my vote for positive reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 10:30 PM

What really worries me, is the lack of any sense of outrage from people like Les. people who doubtless work their arses off to drum up votes for a government which has treated its activists and supporters with utter contempt.
It saddens me to see Shimrod and others mouthing the same old platitudes about how lucky we are to have such a caring democracy.
When perhaps half a million people are butchered in a botched, so called attempt to export democracy, its attraction must surely wane.

What they are really saying is stick with the status quo, someday capitalism will evolve into something more to our liking.....Dream on suckers.....Naesayers have been parroting that stuff for a century.

We need the ideals in our heads, the spirit in our heart, the strength in our arms and the fire in our bellies if we want to change anything in this world....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 02:32 AM

Akenaton

"What really worries me, is the lack of any sense of outrage from people like Les."

Being outraged on a folk web site? I am all kinds of things and sometimes outraged.

"What they are really saying is stick with the status quo, someday capitalism will evolve into something more to our liking.....Dream on suckers.....Naesayers have been parroting that stuff for a century."

Tell us about your alternative I am in your camp, as are most of the Labour Party

"We need the ideals in our heads, the spirit in our heart, the strength in our arms and the fire in our bellies if we want to change anything in this world...."

Now you are talking Ake, but you still need an organisation. The evil Stalinist Empire was brought down by popular non-violent action with out much formal organisation and that was truly impressive, but re-building countries needs democratically organised and elected government.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Paul Burke
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 03:20 AM

I'd say being outraged on a folk web site is doing more than trying to organise change in a party which is going in the opposite direction to what you want.

So your choices are

(1) Do nothing
(2) Do something
(3) Support your opponents

You are doing 3.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 03:32 AM

I suppose it comes down to people working together in political parties. I accept much of the opposition and outrage descibed above but I want to have some effect.

Their was much opposition from "The left" to Callaghan in the 70's. The Party moved to the left, the SDP was formed and we got 20 years of Thatcher. The Socialist Wokers Party has had a fairly coherent and long standing place on the left. More peole vote BNP, none of their policies have been adopted by anybody, they haven't even managed a couple of councilors anywhere and now they have got into bed with their Arch enemy Galloway!

One vote in millions is one vote. If you want to get things done - like resolving the Iraq war and never starting another - you ahve to negotiate and make agreements with other people - lots and lots of other people and I believe that is called party politics sooner or later.

Most of us in the Labour Party want TB to go and we also want our Party back and that is where the battle matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 04:18 AM

Regrettably at the most recent couple of elections there were no Respect, Green, SWP or Socialist Labour Party candidates on my ballot paper, leaving me a straight choice between the Bastards (con), the Don't Knows (Lib Dem) and the Don't Care any More's (New Not Labour any more).


Happily my MP is Robert Marshall-Andrews, QC, a fine example of the Old Labour, awkward squad, usual suspects.

No contest.

Even if I had a Blair-Brown-Tongue "New Labour" candidate, in stead of Marshall-Andrews, "New Labour", disgusting though it may be, is the least worst option. The only thing that might change mymind might be the Lib Dems giving a pretty solid guarantee (that's a laugh on several counts) NOT to concrete over North Kent. After all the fun we had stuffing John Two-Jags' plans for "Cliffe" airport, we have ben sold down the river by the KCC which plans to build a 10-lane motorway from Medway across a new river crossing to Essex, forming the start of an outer M25.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 01:53 PM

"We need the ideals in our heads, the spirit in our heart, the strength in our arms and the fire in our bellies if we want to change anything in this world...."

Now you are talking Ake, but you still need an organisation

Les.... the very last thing we need in this sweet world is "an organisation"

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 02:01 PM

"It saddens me to see Shimrod and others mouthing the same old platitudes about how lucky we are to have such a caring democracy."

Akenaton, what planet are you on? I said nothing about a "caring democracy" - your phrase!!

What I am saying (watch my lips!) is DON'T THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE - it was hard won.

Not voting achieves nothing positive and could so easily be counter-productive.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 02:20 PM

Firstly I disgree with the feeling that an enquiry would in some way be a good thing. It wouldn't. We all know who did it. They all know who did it. What would an inquiry prove? Blame the innocent, ignore the guilty and promote the non-participants? Waste of everyones money I'm afraid.

Secondly there is a way of voting and registering displeasure at the same time. I have done it for years. Mark the one you think you should vote for and then write why you didn't across the paper. It's called a spoiled vote. They all have to be read and counted. If enough of us do it someone may just take notice.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,HughM
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 03:35 PM

If motorists are going to have to pay more tax because of the carbon dioxide they produce (quite a lot of which is caused by unnecessary traffic lights, mini-roundabouts, lane closures, speed humps, one-way systems etc.), perhaps the treasury can expect a nice big contribution from Mr. Blair for the carbon dioxide produced by the Iraq war!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,Mr Soul
Date: 03 Nov 06 - 07:51 PM

All you Blair haters probably consider yourself democrats (except ake of course), you seem to have forgotten that he won another election even though he had much bad press over Iraq.

It was right to go to war and if we had the balls we'd do it again in zimbabwe.

The real social democrats want democracy and freedom for all the peoples of the world not just in their own back yard. You mouthy lot are just that - all mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 09:22 AM

Is your initial R ? Mr Soul.

eric

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,jed
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 11:34 AM

"It was right to go to war" says Mr Soul.Well the invasion and its aftermath has unleashed hell in Iraq.
According to the Lancet over 600000 have been killed since Shock And Awe started the invasion.
Mr Soul like many warmongers talks a good fight but I imagine if he got a steel splinter in his thumb he would soon be bawling to mama.
jed

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 11:43 AM

Who do go for straight forward abuse? I think this sublte addressing of the point Mr Soul makes is a waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 01:09 PM

Why do you go for straight forward abuse? I think this subtle addressing of the point Mr Soul makes is a waste of time.

Sorry about, just chocking on my own sarcasm, serves one right I suppose!

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 01:19 PM

Why don't you go for straight forward abuse? I think this subtle addressing of the point Mr Soul makes is a waste of time.

Third time, yes I know, I know

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,The loner
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 01:29 PM

eric - very good
jed - the lancet report has been discredited many times
les - learn how to spell, then learn how to build sentences and then try and be subtle.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: pdq
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 01:45 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: ard mhacha - PM
Date: 02 Nov 06 - 05:07 PM

Humans for excuses miserable these at looking cringing be must man labour true a creeps of parcel a what, quagmire disastrous this in involvement Brits the about lies of load a out spouting Beckett rubber-gub, leaders call they bastards lying the oppose to shit-scared wallets their on sitting benches Labour the on creeps those see to and, Iraq on inquiry an have to need the on debate that watched I.

                         {'cause it sounds about the same backwards}

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 01:49 PM

Yes i agree ard, you've got it all backwards. Thought it's clever, not.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 02:09 PM

And I thought i was unsure?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST,Jed
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 03:38 PM

About the Lancet report.....it has not been discredited ...it has been attacked by the warmongers...remember them .They are the ones dripping with blood and gore.
Jed

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Nov 06 - 04:05 PM

Quite correct Jed...The Lancet report has NOT been discredited.

The method of calculation used was identical to that used by US/UK in other conflicts.

The samples were large and covered most of Iraq, even areas which have been relativly peaceful.


47 sites throughout Iraq.
1849 households.
Each containing 12800 household members.
Death certificates were produced in 92% of cases.



Of the 629 deaths reported, 87%(547) occured AFTER the invasion.
This compares to 13%(82) before invasion...LINK

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 06:29 PM

The lancet

Ake, death certificates were produced in 92% of cases where a death was claimed - bit of a difference there

If you take the 5.5 deaths per 1,000 rate quoted in the report, then according to the figures in the CIA's World Factbook pre-invasion Iraq had a death rate more than 2 points lower than Canada (at 7.8/1000), and just over half the rates in Germany and Sweden (10.62, 10.31). But then according to the same figures the post-invasion rate is only 5.37, which is less than half the rate for the Isle of Man, of all places, so something seems odd.

And if you take the 500,000 deaths supposedly caused by UN sanctions - which amounts to about 38,500 a year over 13 years - then based on a population of 26m that alone is 1.48 per 1,000 of population. So deduct that from 5.5 per 1,000 and it seems that Iraq pre-invasion was one of the safest places in the world, beaten only by the likes of the Gaza Strip, (of all places). With 3.8 deaths per 1,000 Gaza is more than twice as safe as Canada, and nearly three times as safe as the Isle of Man. But then, again according to World Factbook (by way of Wikipedia), life expectancy in Gaza is 71.79 compared to 80.22 in Canada. Boffins, does any of this make sense?

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 06:36 PM

The lancet - laughable

Letter from Guardian.

1914-1918, four years of high-intensity warfare - British dead, 652,000; 1939-1945, six years of high-intensity warfare- British military and civilian dead, 460,000;
2003-06, three years of low-intensity warfare - Iraqi dead, 655,000?
I hate to be forced to agree with George Bush.
Ron Scott
Nottingham

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 06 - 06:38 PM

Iraqbodycount has issued a press release commenting on the findings in the second Hopkins study into excess post-invasion mortality in Iraq. They don't mention the discrepancy in violent/non-violent distribution of deaths from Lancet 1 to Lancet 2, but they do comment on 5 specific implications of the 655,000 point estimate for excess deaths found by Hopkins:

1 - On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms;

2 - Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment;

3 - Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq;

4 - Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued;

5 - The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja.

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Nov 06 - 03:31 PM

what, no response. i'm not surprised

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 03:54 AM

I admire you tenacity T but won't get sucked into a pointless debate on points which are mainly conjecture.

Facts as usual have diminished to the point at which they have no importance and no influence on the outcome.

Perception is what matters now, not only to the Iraqi people, but to the UK/US electorate. And the perception is that we are led by murderous, self serving humans with no regard for the suffering of their brothers and sisters.


Every live report I hear from Iraq, contains an interview from Iraqi citizens both Shia and Sunni, who bear witness that life is much worse and violent death more common than even under the repressive Saddam regime.

My god you must feel so proud of "democracy"!!!......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Labour's shame
From: ard mhacha
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 05:53 AM

The Democrats are pounding Bush and his puppet masters, and why, well all you people who backed the monkey and Blair over Iraq are getting your answer, and why?, our boys are being killed and we are going to be there a long time, so lets leave the towel-heads in the shit and do a Viet Nam, no thought for the Iraqi people from an insular nation.