Turn on thread page Beta

any labour supporters watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    if there was genocide going on i would want blair to interfer, wouldnt u?
    Well hes going to be a very busy person then. 'bad things' happen throughout the world. We are just a tiny island: Lets sort out our own problems first.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    if there was genocide going on i would want blair to interfer, wouldnt u?
    In principle yes, but what gives us the right to dictate authority to another country? Isn't this what Stalin did?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    so despite the fact u admit the only people pro were the gov and they didnt listent to their supporters you would still vote for them? isnt that rather illogical?
    But I'm Labour and a socialist. Just cos i disagree with Blair doesn't change my beliefs. I vote based on my convictions and I feel I have more faith with Labour than the other lot.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ensocopier)
    Well hes going to be a very busy person then. 'bad things' happen throughout the world. We are just a tiny island: Lets sort out our own problems first.
    HERE HERE!!!!!!! *thoroughly and wholeheartedly agrees*

    what does Blair think he's doing, interfering in international affairs when his own country is in such a mess?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ensocopier )
    Well hes going to be a very busy person then. 'bad things' happen throughout the world. We are just a tiny island: Lets sort out our own problems first.
    so u think it was right of our government to let a 1million people die in the congo because of internal strife between warlord. right of the government not to interfer in countires where there is state sponsored terriosm against other countires. oh no the cutting 4 days off waiting lists is far more important i can see to u
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    so u think it was right of our government to let a 1million people die in the congo because of internal strife between warlord. right of the government not to interfer in countires where there is state sponsored terriosm against other countires. oh no the cutting 4 days off waiting lists is far more important i can see to u
    Its very difficult to know when to intervene, it seemed right in Iraq but with hindsight it was wrong. I just think that sometimes invasion creates more problems, and stokes up resentment for the future. In 100 years time, some history student will be writing an essay on the causes of some big terrorist attack, and one main cause I bet will be the Iraq war.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ensocopier)
    Its very difficult to know when to intervene, it seemed right in Iraq but with hindsight it was wrong. I just think that sometimes invasion creates more problems, and stokes up resentment for the future. In 100 years time, some history student will be writing an essay on the causes of some big terrorist attack, and one main cause I bet will be the Iraq
    agree heartly with the resentment bit. to me the bigger problem is the fact that we are only intervening in countires where our personnel intrests are at stake so either we dont do anything which isnt going to be great history tells us (american isolationism before ww2) or we intervene everywhere, if the 2nd option is to be considered then the responce must be multialateral since it prevents resentment and also prevents explotation of that country (ie american oil firms in iraq) however it also seems unrealistic to expect to be everywhere but i think certainly what our government sees at its priorities need to be looked at with regards to foregin policy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    agree heartly with the resentment bit. to me the bigger problem is the fact that we are only intervening in countires where our personnel intrests are at stake so either we dont do anything which isnt going to be great history tells us (american isolationism before ww2) or we intervene everywhere, if the 2nd option is to be considered then the responce must be multialateral since it prevents resentment and also prevents explotation of that country (ie american oil firms in iraq) however it also seems unrealistic to expect to be everywhere but i think certainly what our government sees at its priorities need to be looked at with regards to foregin policy
    Very good post. I completely agree, however as you will appreciate, people often suffer from a lack of information at the time. Tony Blair probably thought Saddam did have WMD. Therefore, maybe its best not to get involved.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    if blair had had better (definate) proof of WMD would you of supported the war in iraq?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    if blair had had better (definate) proof of WMD would you of supported the war in iraq?
    Depends on your definition of WMD. As in weapons which could, and were intended for direct use against either Britain or America; then the answer is yes. If not this definition then no.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pkonline)
    I'd vote Labour. This forum seems very anti-Labour but the polls show that even with all our troubles and the Tory honeymoon, we are still ahead. I think the last one I saw had us 9% ahead of the Tories.
    when was this, 1996?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nafisa)
    Yes, locally I agree, nationally VOTE LABOUR ......
    who are you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think I would have supported the Labour Party if I could have voted before "New Labour" came about- but I don't think I would ever vote for them now.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    when was this, 1996?
    No, MORI Decemeber 2003.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pkonline)
    No, MORI Decemeber 2003.
    can i see that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Sure you can.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pkonline)
    Sure you can.
    call me intelligent, i was expecting a link...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    call me intelligent, i was expecting a link...
    Intelligent.

    I thought u were asking if u had the ability. If u go to the MORI site there must be a section there.

    http://www.mori.com/index-news.phtml
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    BTW the poll says that from thos certain to vote Labour are 9% ahead with 40%. Looking at all voters, Labour are further (15%) ahead with 43% of th vote.

    We can't rest on our lorrels though. This has been a bad year but we goto concentrate on making public services much better. This is the key issue people care about.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serendipity)
    Ah, but the UK Learning poll seems to disagree
    Yes and the UK learning poll is so representative of the british population
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.