Why do Bush and Blair supporters think the only way to get democracy is by warfare?

In my case it's because in my country it was.

But do tell us how many dictatorships like Saddam's have become a democracy without bloodshed.

The war in Iraq was not the decision of the UK, it was the decision of Bush.

Yes, because Bush is the only person in America (or the world) who makes decisions. He is both the only decision-maker and a typical conservative sheep.

Never mind that regime change in Iraq was UK and US policy for ten years before the invasion. But who would know much about the facts and be a left-winger?

"And the terrorists chose to ignore the Geneva Convention. "

Many have been released without charge. Many of the captives were picked up in Muslim countries without even being engaged in combat. How do we know they are terrorists unless this has been proven independently by a court?

I don't accept the 'we must abandon our own liberties to beat the terrorists' because if we do we hand them an automatic victory.

Many have been released without charge. Many of the captives were picked up in Muslim countries without even being engaged in combat. How do we know they are terrorists unless this has been proven independently by a court?

I am beginning to wonder why you care so much about these 500 prisoners while Islamists and Arab nationalists kill hundreds of thousands in Sudan and elsewhere.

"picked up in Muslim countries": I assume the left need to make up simple-sounding explanations for their "opinions"?

I don't accept the 'we must abandon our own liberties to beat the terrorists' because if we do we hand them an automatic victory.

Which of my liberties where abandoned here? If I ever meet anybody whose liberties were affected by this, I'll run.

"Yes, because Bush is the only person in America (or the world) who makes decisions."

Away from planet 'God Bless America' we know that is bullshit.

"But do tell us how many dictatorships like Saddam's have become a democracy without bloodshed."

The perfect example would be the Ukraine. This was backed by the US, which I have no problem with. I wouldn't have had a problem with the Iraqis rising up and killing Saddam themselves. But I think it is a bit rich having abandoned the Iraqis when the were ready to rise up in the first gulf war to come back and bomb Iraq to pieces and play the heroes when it was through US/UK indecision it was not done in the first place.

Read 'Tony Blair: Accidental American' to learn about this.

I know what's better. YOU read some sort of history book.

YOU need to learn history. WE already know left-wing opinions.

"I am beginning to wonder why you care so much about these 500 prisoners while Islamists and Arab nationalists kill hundreds of thousands in Sudan and elsewhere."

I care about the rule of law, and do not find it acceptable that democratic nations should have one rule for its own citizens and other rules for non-citizens. Guantanemo is simply a recruiting tool for more Jihadists since it plays to their propaganda.

"WE already know left-wing opinions."

I am not left wing. I am a disillusioned one nation British Tory. Iraq cannot be considered a left/right issue.

The war in Iraq was not the decision of the UK, it was the decision of Bush. Blair was part of his gang but the UK did not want this war which is why I say unilaterally. I.e. Blair simply joined the neo-con clique.

Then it still was not Unilateral.  Whomever makes the decision is irrelevant.  Unilateral means "on your own" and it was not on our own.  So say what you mean and quit throwing around the talking points of your master for it is clear you - A: have no idea what they mean, and B: Cant think for yourself.

I care about the rule of law, and do not find it acceptable that democratic nations should have one rule for its own citizens and other rules for non-citizens.

I am a no American citizen. Yet I am somehow not in Guantanamo. Is it perhaps possible that the distinction is between lawful combatants and normal people on the one side and terrorist scum on the other?

But I must say, I agree with you. Guantanamo Bay should be closed as a prison. The prisoners should be sent to one of the countries who do not go against the UN (and are thus "democratic") and do not start wars against fascist regimes. Egypt would be a good place.

They execute Islamists.

P.S.: I'll keep this new definition of "democratic" I got from you. It's really cute and very useful for my dictionary. One apparently defends one's reputation for democracy by following the UN rather than one's voters. Very good.

"Which of my liberties where abandoned here?"

It is happening in all western countries now, draconian laws which make nobody safer and simply give the state more powers to act in secret and detain without charge. Take for example the 90 day rule Blair is attempting to push through here, although it only got a majority of 1 in the commons yesterday.

"Yes, because Bush is the only person in America (or the world) who makes decisions." Away from planet 'God Bless America' we know that is bullshit.

Then why did you make the statement?  You are arguing with yourself.  He was being sarcastic of your simplistic response.

"eputation for democracy by following the UN rather than one's voters."

Oh yeah, because we all know how popular Iraq was! Fool.

"I am a no American citizen. Yet I am somehow not in Guantanamo."

I have to say with kind of logic you are one of the weakest debaters I have ever come across.

Oh yeah, because we all know how popular Iraq was! Fool.

American voters said attack. The UN said do not attack. George Bush followed his voters, not the UN. Andrew.

P.S.: Ukraine is also a good example of a country where weapons inspections worked. That's because their government, presumably the one you argue was like Saddam's regime, did not interfere with the inspectors.

Oh yeah, because we all know how popular Iraq was! Fool.

I have to say with kind of logic you are one of the weakest debaters I have ever come across.

Actually, I was going to say that of you since you are the one resorting to name calling, which means you have lost the debate.

Leauki is no man's fool.  Which is why he is not a sheeple.

PCS, if you are a British Tory you must know Alan B'Stard!

Do you?

Anyway,

I have to say with kind of logic you are one of the weakest debaters I have ever come across.

With kind of logic, indeed. It was you who established the theory that the distinction the US made was one of citizens and non-citizens, whereas I argue, and I still believe I am right, that the disctinction is one between two other groups.

"if you are a British Tory you must know Alan B'Stard!"

Of course, but I feel it was a rather unfair potrayal by Rik Mayll of some well love Conservative ministers.

"and I still believe I am right"

Ah, a fanatic.

Actually, I was going to say that of you since you are the one resorting to name calling, which means you have lost the debate.

Name calling? I thought he just signed his statement.

Leauki is no man's fool. Which is why he is not a sheeple.

How strong can one's debate skills be if they include name calling?

"if you are a British Tory you must know Alan B'Stard!" Of course, but I feel it was a rather unfair potrayal by Rik Mayll of some well love Conservative ministers.

That is a matter of opinion.

"and I still believe I am right" Ah, a fanatic.

Indeed. I do not change my mind just because somebody calls me names. That makes me a fanatic, I suppose.

(Another word to add to my dictionary.)

Name calling? I thought he just signed his statement.

Oops!  My mistake!

Back on the original topic...
NEWS FLASH... He's a lame duck president! He can't run again, so he doesn't have to worry so much about public opinion. This happens near the end of most president's terms as they give up spinning things to be happy and fuzzy and it's when they try and get the most work done, knowing that actual results piss people off.

I'm no fan of Bush, I voted against him both times... but honestly, what has *he* done (not his minions) recently that's been particularly bad?

We have not had a president so disliked both in the United States as well as in almost EVERY country in the world in modern times. Even in England, the PEOPLE do not like Bush or his policies. It is sad to see our president so disliked where evey he goes. A good measure of the dislke is the amount of security that is needed when he visits throught out the world! Now Cheney's popularity has fallen even below that of Bush. Great choice America in November of 2004!

We have not had a president so disliked both in the United States as well as in almost EVERY country in the world in modern times. Even in England, the PEOPLE do not like Bush or his policies. It is sad to see our president so disliked where evey he goes. A good measure of the dislke is the amount of security that is needed when he visits throught out the world!

Yes, that is true. Unfortunately people in general now oppose democracy and are more fond of fascist regimes. This is a sad development.

There are two ways this can be changed: we can either give up and stop opposing fascism or we can wait for people to wake up again, like they have after the last war.


It is ridiculous that the same people who supported Saddam Hussein (in spite of his wars) now demonstrate against George Bush (because of his wars).

Wow, thousands of people protestsed. Great turnout.

We have not had a president so disliked both in the United States as well as in almost EVERY country in the world in modern times. Even in England, the PEOPLE do not like Bush or his policies.

That sums it for me col. President Bush is President of the United States. Nobody cares what they think in England or most of the world for that matter. Most of the "world" that you care so much about would rather have people like Saddam and other dictators in power. So your point is meaningless as usual.

We have not had a president so disliked both in the United States as well as in almost EVERY country in the world in modern times

While we are at it. Can you back that up?

In general, I believe, a statesman becomes more popular the more people he kills. Saddam, for example, was and is very popular in the Arab world. Bush didn't kill as many Arabs as Saddam, thus Bush is less popular.

Incidentally, Clinton was also more popular among Arabs than Bush. But I suppose that is because Bush is for an independent Palestine and Clinton was not. Arabs usually don't support independence for Palestine. That's why they occupied it before the Israelis.