Gordon's Time Runs Out

Just had an e-mail saying that a Labour Party regional officer has been ringing up CLPs in our area asking them to nominate Brown. At time of writing there is one hour to go before the nominations deadline is reached. Sadly for the apparatchiks desperate to drum up support for the Dear Leader, we had our CLP meeting two weeks ago. As I explain in this e-mail to a Party official.


Our resolution from Hebden Royd BLP was to support John McDonnell and on my head count it would have gone through at the CLP two weeks ago had we been allowed a vote
We have now missed the deadline anyway but what's the point in nominating Brown? Most of us at the meeting were very angry we did not have the chance for a vote on the leadership. Most of us were going to vote for McDonnell because he reflected the views of our CLP on Trident and Iraq and other issues like PFI and privatisation.
We may well have taken a view on the Deputy but we've missed that deadline too which is regrettable. What is most regrettable however is that our democratic rights as Labour Party members have been taken away by a PLP which does not reflect the view at the grassroots.
To that end, Calder Valley CLP has passed a resolution lowering the leadership threshold to 7.5 per cent of the PLP. It will be on the agenda @ Conference in 2008
I hope this will ensure that we never get a situation again where we have an unelected Leader of the Labour Party. Whatever your point of view, this is not a desirable or democratic situation.
Coun Susan Press Calder Valley CLP (personal capacity)


Display: Sort:

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#1)

Calder Valley eh?

Notable that we lost it in 1992 and won it in 1997 (and since) under New Labour. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#2)

Really, Glass? If you had any knowledge at all of this constituency you would know that the only reason we won last time ( on a very much reduced majority Imight add ) was on the basis that our MP was NOT New Labour and had voted against the war in Iraq/top-upfees/foundation hospitals. Along with all the other local activists, I spent weeks on the phone begging people to vote Labour ( not New Labour) on the grounds that Blair would soon be going.This was the basis on which we scraped in last time by 1500 votes. Well, Blair is finally about to go ( after two years) and sadly it looks as if Brown will carry on as New Labour.If he does, you can rest assured that New Labour and all its works will in fact be responsible for a Tory gain at the next election.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#3)

And if Brown carries on with a New Labour agenda and the seat is held, will admit that New Labour was right?

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#4)

As I have said, more of the same will lose us the seat.Chris McCafferty is standing down so we won't get the personal vote we had last time. There is major hostility to New Labour round here.Our only hope is a left candidate.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#5)

If the people of Calder Valley are so left wing, why did they return Tories before 1992?

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#6)

This is a marginal seat and always has been. Roughly speaking one half of the Valley is old manufacturing towns, traditional Labour or Tory, the other half strong Lib Dem vote and Labour (with big reservations).We also have the BNP factor.Though not as badly as Halifax. There is usually a Green candidate too who hoovers up votes from us. The demographic has changed since 1992. As indeed has the world ( though you would never know it from the way New Labour carry on).In Hebden Bridge, where I live, there is massive opposition to the war, Trident, and privatisation policies of this Govt.Maybe it's different where you are. But there you have it.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#7)

I Calder Valley the one with the High School at the top of all those very steep hills?

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#8)

And your point is ?????

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#9)

I personally spoke to several dozen people in Battersea last time, and convinced them not to vote Lib Dem, because there are still left-wing people in the party, even if the party isn't. Battersea was won by 163 votes.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#13)

That should have said Is Calder Valley the one...

My point was just...well...nothing. Just that I know the school.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#10)

It is funny isn't it. Just weeks ago you were talking about giving the winner a chance, being fair and open minded. And now, before he's even through the door, you're kicking him up the ass. I'm sure you'll be very happy of we lose the next election. And you can be very proud that you'll have played your part.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#11)

The winner? Of what exactly? There hasn't been an election, and therefore no-one has won anything. I believe comrades were talking about a situation in which Gordon Brown (shock horror) had an electoral mandate. I don't see why we should be expected to unite around a leader we never even had the chance to vote for or against. Furthermore, the lack of an election will only further demoralise party activists - after all, polls revealed that they overwhelmingly wanted a contest.

Nobody wants the Tories to win the next election. Unfortunately, in case you hadn't noticed, we are currently sleepwalking to electoral defeat because of the continuation of deeply unpopular New Labour policies. To be quite honest it's totally out of order for you to accuse comrades like Susan Press - an elected Labour councillor who have been an active party member for decades - of wanting the Tories to win the next election. Perhaps you'd like to let everyone know how active you've been for the party so we can do a little comparison with Susan?

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#14)

And you thought old Mcdonnell would have saved the day? Are you out of your mind? Or do you just not believe in the democracy our party has?

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#15)

It's very difficult to engage with you any sort of debate, Loz. As for democracy - well, I'm afraid my understanding of democracy (call me old-fashioned) is that people have the right to elect their own leader. There's nothing remotely democratic about a leader being selected without any consultation with the membership and the opportunity to at least choose another candidate.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#16)

It's not so difficult, you're doing a good job of it at the moment. So basically therefore you believe the way democracy within the party needs to be changed? (I'd agree with you on that btw). I'm simply asking a question of you.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#17)

Loz. 1.What democracy? 2.Is"old" some new insult you can hurl in absence of political debate (John McD is slightly younger than Brown) and 3. have been in Labour Party 30 years and still under 50. 4. Ever read any Labour history?

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#18)

1. It's the election rules agreed upon. Can you not play by the rules? 2. The 'old' was a play on his name, not an insult about his age. 3. Is not a question. 4. Yes, and have read all abiut party elections. Gordon Brown won fairly. Yet you hypocrits who moan about it would no doubt have no complaints if your candidate had sailed past the post unimpeded. Yet all you can do now is bitch and moan and bring the party down. As almost everyone with a brain predicted, Mcdonnell whilst putting up a good fight, never made the ballot because his own peers didn't want him to. That is the most telling fact of all.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#12)

And yes, I would note that accusing party members of wanting a Tory victory is a bit rich coming from a supporter of Sarkozy and the US Republicans

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#19)

I'll repeat this:Perhaps you'd like to let everyone know how active you've been for the party so we can do a little comparison with Susan. Just to let you know, we had about 10.5 million voters in 1983, compared with the 9.0 million voters we had in the last election.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#20)

why does anyone to know how active we are in the party? what bareing does that have on debate?

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#21)

It has none glass house. It's pure stupidity. We're here because we support and want the best for the party. I don't remember signing up and being classed as a second class poster just because I haven't been as 'active' as some of the other folks. It's arrogant and the sort of mindset which ultimately ruins a political party.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#30)

Missed all this as have been out all day...the people who put the MPs where they are are the activists.You know, the poor saps who deliver the leaflets, phone bash, canvas.Thousands of these activists (including me) have just been slapped in the face by their MPs and denied a vote in a democratic contest.No I'm not so old but I've campaigned in six general elections, several by-elections and dozens of local elections. Have stood as councillor three times and won twice.You don't think that's relevant? OK. I know what it's like to lose general Elections (four in my lifetime) and let me tell you the way Brown is behaving we're heading for Number 5 .And it won't be because of left-wingers like me it will be because of the arrogant, wrong-headed, mindless slavishness to the market and right-wing mindsets which has been the hallmark of new Labour. Why can't you just listen and learn ...most people in the Labour Party want Labour politics back. But I wouldn't expect someone who backed Republicans and Sarkozy to understand that. What I don't understand is why they are in the Labour Party at all....

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#22)

Well you see Loz accuses Susan of :"I'm sure you'll be very happy of we lose the next election. And you can be very proud that you'll have played your part." Now I think saying this to someone like Susan is completely stupid, Susan has campaigning for Labour since before I was born. Now Loz is the exact reason so many people have left the party, because of the support of conservative(neo-con) candidates in the US, supporting John Bolton in a debate against Tony Benn, and supporting a cross-between of Thatcher and Tebbit in France. So Loz has no right to accuse Susan of anything, as I pointed out, we had more votes in 83 than we did in the last elections. But "it's the left who are ruining the party"

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#23)

In 2002, before the Iraq war, Labour party membership was 280,000, down from 400,000 in 1997.

This was before the 'support' for the neo-cons, 'support' for John Bolton, or 'support' for Sarkozy. Maybe you could consider that there maybe other reasons for the decline in membership.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#24)

Support for Bush, Privatisation, Booting out Ken Livingstone. My point was that Loz has no right to accuse Susan of Wanting the Tories to win.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#26)

Support for Bush on the war on terror. Do get your insults right. Support for privatisation? Depends what we're talking about. I haven't really discussed that, so yet another baseless insult. Wanting to boot red ken out? Hell yeah. Get that nasty anti semite, tyrant supporting idiot out and I'll be a happy man. As for 'no right'. I think you've been listening to one too many Fidel Castro speeches. This is a democracy, I have every right and don't you forget it.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#28)

Why is he an 'anti-semite'?

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#29)

Support for Bush=The most right wing US president ever. This is a democracy, you would fit in better in the conservative party, since you oppose the social democrat in france and supported a cross-between of Thatcher and Tebbit instead. You support the Neo Conservatives in the US so you might as well support a milder version of them here. Ken is no anti-semite,I'm jewish and i'm telling you this.He made some silly remark to a journalist for a paper that launchad a campaign against him and used to support Oswald Mosley, big deal... He is the best thing that ever happened to London, thanks to him London doesn't look like Bangkok. You talk about Cuba, yes Castro isn't a democratic leader, his does however, provide free education, free health care and gives grants to train Doctors. Now I agree he should introduce democracy, but why focus on him, you are a fan of the Saudi Government, why not introduce democracy there? Oh wait! Cuba has no oil, and is Opposed to US forign policy. Compare Cuba's human rights record to that of Saudi Arabia and I think you will have a litle suprise. I can't be bothered to get into another debate with you because you just don't listen. Let's hear what you have done for the party that gives you the right to throw stupid remarks at Susan.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#31)

Support for bush on the war on terror, as most Mps did. Firstly get your insults right for once. Secondly, I guess me and these hundreds of Labour Mps who have devoted their lives to the party should just go and join the GOP. How absurd. As for red ken, his comments demonstrate otherwise, and the fact you are jewish does not mean a thing, only that you were not offended by the comments. As for your defense of castro, it's also absurd. Why the hell did the dictator need to go abroad for treatment? Why is the country still suffering in poverty and neglect? It's nice that you'd try and defend a man that has had dozens of political opponents killed and was best buddies with South Americas terrorist number 1. I'm sure the free health care means an awful lot to the civilians who have been forced to endure decades of his dictatorship. Not least the fools who fought for the man who denied his communist roots. As for Saudi Arabia, since when have I said I was a 'fan' of the government. It's very sad you have to resort to complete lies. It's ironic you no doubt think Blair and Bush are liars, yet you quite happily lie yourself to smear others. As for what I have done for the party, I have voted for the party. No law says I have to knock on doors, and no rule book when I signed up said I had to do so to have free speech. My comment was not aimed at Susan it was aimed at grumupnorth or whatever his name is, relating to a discussion (I actually referenced in my comment) I had with him not to long ago.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#33)

Grimupnorth is Susan

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#34)

Loz, Grimupnorth is, er,female and called Susan

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#36)

lol. My apologies. I didn't know you were a female, or the author. Doesn't change the bulk of what I said however.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#35)

Well most party members didn't like the Monica Lewinski like relationship with Bush. Wost of the population of the world see Bush for what he really is: A war-mongering, oil dealing, arms selling crook, who had less votes than Al Gore. I read what Ken said to the journalist (whoever his name is) and judged that it wasn't anti-semitic, but right wingers like yourself like to pretend it is, because you hate him. You previously said the Saudis were allys, again comparing Cuba's human rights record(That isn't good compared to western standards) to that of Saudi Arabia, and you will have a sharp conclusion. Cuba doesn't have public executions or public cutting of limbs. So I would rather buy oil from somwere like Venezuela, with a far better human right record( and democracy). Exactly what has Castro done to be a terrorist, if I recall it was the Americans who attacked him and still have a stupid pointless embargo on him. btw as pointed out grim is Susan......

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#37)

What Monica Lewinski like relationship? You were quite happy to try and deny people who were critical of longstanding members a voice, yet now you are quite happy to sit there and cast as 'neo cons' mps who voted with Blair on the matter, mps who also have been longstanding Labour members. The comments were either anti semetic or just plain sick. Neither paints Ken in a good position, not to mention his inivtations to islamo facists etc. I said the Saudis were allys in the war on terror, which is a fact, not an opinion. This isn't about 'oil', I loathe the regimes of the saudis, the cubans and the venezeulans in near equal measure. Castro, in his early days was a terrorist, but I wasn't refering to him, I was refering to the bastard terrorist Che Guevara.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#39)

OK, here's a couple of things to bear in mind. During the last election, a poll was conducted in the UK asking which candidate they would like to see win the 2004 presidential election. Bush got around 22%, Kerry 68%. That's what people think of the GOP at the moment, Loz. And secondly, Blair just visited Gadhaffi! The same Gadhaffi who openly funded the IRA in the 70's, as did America at some stage, and invited Gerry Adams to the White House on St. Patricks Day. So it's hardly ok for Blair to talk about a 'war on terror' when he visits Gadhaddi.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#42)

I know very well what the peoplem think of Bush. You'd have to live in a bubble to not know he's very unpopular. But what point are your trying to make other than to tell me something I already know? I don't like Gadhaffi, and I don't like the way Blair was so 'friendly' with him. HOWEVER the man did give up his illegal programmes, and so I'm afraid we have to make some sort of gesture. Surely that's what the left wingers actually want? As for American and the IRA, citizens funding terrorism is not the same as state sponsored terrorism. Either you want peace or you don't. I despise Gerry Adams, but should we now that we are on the road to peace continue to isolate him or do what is best for the people of Ireland?

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#41)

I suppose you think Oliver Cromwell and Nelson Mandela were terrorists, if you think Che was a terrorist.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#43)

I'm afraid people that target civilians ina quest for political gain are nothing more than terrorists.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#45)

Actually people who try to terrify civilians are terrorists (to quote 'the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise'): another way of describing this would be 'shock and awe'.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#46)

*sigh*

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#47)

And since when was shock and awe about terrifying civilians? That's right, it wasn't. Nice try though, but a completely flawed comparison.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#48)

That was absolutely what it was about.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#49)

Actually not it wasn't. The whole point was a major and rapid assault on strategic iraqi government and military locations, which in part contributed toward one of the quicket and successful military invasions in history.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#50)

The childeren that died in Faluja weren't on a strategic and military locations. The Invading American and British did attack civilians are they terrorists? You label Che a terrorist, what did he do? He is far less a terorist than Bush,Blair and the Saudi Government.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#52)

The children that died were not targetted. I guess my grandparents were terrorists as well, seeing as they took part in a war that had millions of civilian casualties. How absurd and what a disgraceful and near treasonous assessment of our breave armed forced. How dare you besmirch these brave individuals. Che Guevara was a terrorist because his 'revolutionary' armies DID target innocent people, ironically the very 'peasants' he was 'trying' to help.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#54)

Why are you trying to defend an act like Faluja??????? Che didn't attack civilians, stop your fibbing you torie.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#58)

Clearly you need to brush up on your history. In the Cuban and Bolivian campaigns the terrorists deployed terrorist tactics, such as assaults and murder upon those in the rural areas who they could not rely on for support. This also extended to theft. Very ironic. And it's Tory, not Torie.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#60)

No they attacked, Batista supporters, who aided the military. It's not a bad think to fight against an american apointed dictator who uses Cuba like a dump for vice. I'm not a defender of Castro, but he has doen a lot of good. Cubans are better under him than under Batista. Do you support the embargo on Cuba? Castro did send troops to Angola, to help the government there against the aparthied.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#70)

Again read you history. I have studied the Cuban revolution in great detail. Have you? I assume you could not have otherwise you would not be denying the fact that his militants killed countless innocent people in their early stages. Even within their own ranks a great deal of barbarity took place. You are clearly defending an evil tyrant. Hitler also 'did good things' for the German people. That doesn't change the fact he's one of the most evil SOBs humanity has ever produced. The fact remains his regime has locked up and murdered countless political opponents which overshadows anything else he has done. Castro also sent his terrorists to countries that didn't want him to. He back the Bolivian communists into a corner and despite there demands that they obtain revolution through peaceful methods, by de facto the placing of Che Guevara in Bolivia.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#57)

Perhaps thiscontemporary account of the Fallujah assault will serve as a timely reminder (it's worth remembering that the city of Fallujah suffered badly under Saddam and was the scene of one of the worst incidents of the first Gulf War).

And yes, Loz, Blitzkrieg (practised by both sides in the Second World War) is a type of terrorism too (by both yours and my definition). Rather than go around deciding who is or isn't a terrorist, let's try and resolve the problems and stop wars.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#59)

When you look at what happened in Fallujah, it is important to remember just who the two sides were. One is an islamo facist force of terrorists that raped the city and suppressed the population. A force that used innocent people as human shields and placed bombs in strategic civilian locations. The other is a force made up of brave young men and women from our greatest ally who are fighting side by side for us for a better Iraq. Blitzkrieg was a necessary yet tragic consequence of war something I won't deny. I think it's fairly obvious who the terrorists are, and it does nobody any harm pointing that out. I would love to resolve problems, but if you think we can resolve problems with bin laden and co, you're out of your mind. He can only be resolved by a bullet between the eyes. We must try and win hearts and minds, but that doesn't mean where military action is needed it will be ignored. Thankfully our leaders realise this.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#62)

"On the evening of April 28, 2003, a crowd of 200 people defied a curfew imposed by the Americans and gathered outside a secondary school used as a military HQ to demand its reopening. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne stationed on the roof of the building opened fire on the crowd, resulting in the deaths of 17 civilians and the wounding of over 70." Is this what you call"fighting side by side for us for a better Iraq".?

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#67)

Yes, of course you forget (just a mistake?) to mention the fact the crowd were firing into the US troops. Lets get the facts right.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#63)

The idea that resolving problems with radicalised - or potentially radicalised - Islam can only be framed as reolving problems with Bin Laden is setting ludicrous parameters on the political necessities of this crisis.

Loz, there weren't two sides in Fallujah. I don't like the term Islamo-fascism, but I agree that some of the insurgency groups are politically very repressive and propagate a politics that we both rightly find repugnant. But there was a plurality of 'enemy' in Fallujah, and to dismiss it all as 'Islamo fascist' is to avoid politics and ensure war. And yes, the tactics of guerilla warfare are horrible and brutal. Nobody would expect 'the enemy' to locate their positions or their rockets far outside residential areas where they're easier to hit. No sides 'play fair' in this sort of conflict, whether it be the interaction with the civilian population of guerilla fighters, or the overwhelming dominance of 'traditional' armies. But to echo you: that's war. War is a horrid, repulsive, barbarous thing in which people are killed: civilians, professional soldiers, conscripts; zealots, ingenues, the brainwashed, the idealistic: they are all killed. And women, children, the elderly. Others just have their lives destroyed.

Loz, there are very few circumstances when anybody should choose that reality. While people like you are saying 'this is all the fault of the terrorists, the Islamo-fascists, etc. and their actions mean we must act as we do' and your mirror image is saying 'this is all the fault of the infidel, etc. and their actions mean we must act as we do' we are left with a completely hopeless situation.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#68)

"The idea that resolving problems with radicalised - or potentially radicalised - Islam can only be framed as reolving problems with Bin Laden is setting ludicrous parameters on the political necessities of this crisis. " I just gave you an example of how absurd it is to suggest it could be solved another way. "Loz, there weren't two sides in Fallujah. I don't like the term Islamo-fascism, but I agree that some of the insurgency groups are politically very repressive and propagate a politics that we both rightly find repugnant. But there was a plurality of 'enemy' in Fallujah, and to dismiss it all as 'Islamo fascist' is to avoid politics and ensure war. And yes, the tactics of guerilla warfare are horrible and brutal. Nobody would expect 'the enemy' to locate their positions or their rockets far outside residential areas where they're easier to hit. No sides 'play fair' in this sort of conflict, whether it be the interaction with the civilian population of guerilla fighters, or the overwhelming dominance of 'traditional' armies. But to echo you: that's war. War is a horrid, repulsive, barbarous thing in which people are killed: civilians, professional soldiers, conscripts; zealots, ingenues, the brainwashed, the idealistic: they are all killed. And women, children, the elderly. Others just have their lives destroyed. Loz, there are very few circumstances when anybody should choose that reality. While people like you are saying 'this is all the fault of the terrorists, the Islamo-fascists, etc. and their actions mean we must act as we do' and your mirror image is saying 'this is all the fault of the infidel, etc. and their actions mean we must act as we do' we are left with a completely hopeless situation." But that is warfare. Two sides who ultimately want to destroy each other. You've just got to decide if that similarity extends to tactics. Ultimately we're not the ones with a policy to target innocent people. They have done and continue to do so. Day after day, they are blowing up indiscriminately. Do you ever sit and wonder why these people are doing that? I do. Do you really think these people would not be doing this had we not invaded? That they would be the average iraqi, or as it happens foreigner? Just going about their lives. Yet one day they saw old dubya invade their land and they decided to take up arms. I just don't buy it, and I think it is an insult to islam and iraqis to suggest that beneath the surface they are evil barbarians. I fully accept that this is a diverse and splintered ideology. But time and again, when their leaders speak, the end game is roughly the same. The evil in these people wasn't born in 2003, nor 9.11. This truely evil and dangerous mindset is generations in the work. It is sadly, religious in its tone. With talk of 'crusades' and an 'evil empire' we know that this problem goes beyond the Iraqi war, or even just the Americans. It is a problem nations across the world face. Terrorists were planning to behead the Canadian PM, they have targetted numerous nations that has nothing to do with the war. Thye reasoning is often different, but it is the ideology and extremism that gives them motive and inspiration for their actions. If we were an oppressive force, I might be able to understand it. But we are helping these people. They often do try and promote us as an evil occupier, but then where were these people during Saddams regime who surely must be as awful as they make us out to be? Many of the leaders of the islamo facist network were radicalized from birth. That chain of indoctrination is getting worse. From palestine to pakistan the tactics are becomming more evil and desperate. We've seen the picture of what they do to these children, and it should scare every person with a soul. There is no way of negotiating with this. They will never change, and have plans that extend beyond iraq or afghanistan. So we can either just sit back and hope for the best, appease and placate or we can learn the lessons of history and confront this head on to save ourselves in the future. That doesn't mean total war, it means a multi pronged approach. Trying to win hearts and minds by helping and supporting the moderates, and confronting regimes which are openly hostile to us and our allies. I'd love to think we could reason with nations like Iran, I honestly would. But you only to need to listen to their leaders and negotiators to know that there plan is not for peace, it is for war.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#64)

When you say what you say about resolving problems with Bin Laden (and of course, as far as you go, you are right about that). I immediately think of one line in that Iraqi blog I linked to above:

a small child yelled at the bus, "We will be mujahedeen until we die!"

Of no compromise can be reached with Bin Laden. But is that small child one of the new terrorists you were happy (on another thread) to see smoked out so that they could be slaughtered? (again using your words, and not meaning to be over-emotive). If not, where do you draw the line: who are just terrorists and therefore evil and to be killed, and who are human beings who are angry, and have strong, passionate beliefs (like you) and have reached the conclusion that only violence can resolve them (again, like you).

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#69)

If I ever reached the point I would feel violent against a foreign force, I would target that foreign force. Targetting civilians is NEVER acceptable. For me that is rule number one and is non negotiable. I think for anyone to have a genuine gripe against our forces, it would have to be if those forces were carrying out massacres and as a policy trying their hardest to pilage and ruin my country. I don't see that, therefore I see no justification for violent actions. I people want to peacefully protest to get our guys out, I have no problem. As President Bush has himself said, if the Iraqis ask us to leave, we'll leave. At this time they haven't. They've asked us to stay. You've got to consider that while there are without question tens of thousands of insurgents, these are made up of many thousands of foreigners who do not represent iraq, yet despite all that are an extreme minority. Not even 1% of Iraqis are involved. So how can these people trying to force us out and fight us out legitimately represent Iraq? Further to that, their campaigns are largely if not solely foreign aided. As has been rightly pointed out, the country has become a magnet for terror. It's a desperate situation, and I wouldn't want you to think that I don't sit and despair as I'm sure you do every day at what happens. I feel great anger towards these terrorists, I want the Iraqis to be free, to have democracy and for out guys to come home. These bastards are an obstacle to that and efforts so far to negotiate with them have proved fruitless. In fact things have only got worse. Now, you did raise an interesting point about children who sadly have been exploited into this and other conflicts around the world. The tactics have been barbaric. Children are literally forced into that situation, in places like Palestine the terrorists, the government of Hamas have used despicable tactics to create a generation that will hate us all. We are quite shielded from this in the UK. It's an interesting and shocking topic that many would do well to research. But back on topic. I wouldn't want to see any children killed. The only situation I can imagine that this would happen is if a child genuinly posed an immediate threat to our troops or civilians. It is permissable that shots might need to be fired at that child. But again, that is the horror of war. I don't know how to win this war, we are not winning it at this point. Militarily we win every time we engage the enemy, but in terms of hearts and minds, we're really up against it. I would be genuinly interested to hear an alternative strategy but I have seen none at this time from the anti war groups. I'm sure they'd have a hell of a lot more respect from more moderate sectors of the public if they could provide this alternative.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#73)

A lot of thought has been put into alternative strategies, and they've been outlined again and again. Of course, you disagree with the anaylsis that underpins those alternative strategies so dismiss them out of hand, but they clearly exist. In fact, both the US and UK governments are (sometimes painfully) slowly coming to those alternative strategies of their own volition (or something resembling some of them), but it would be much better to do so positively and proudly, rather than almost giving the impression that they've been beaten into it by the insurgency.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#74)

And I have seen none. Plenty of criticism but no alternative. Either you think we can negotiate with Bin Laden and other such extremists or you don't. If you do, then your assessment would be right. The US certainly is not and is bravely sticking to fighting these bastards. The largest US military build up in the gulf since 03 does not suggest they're about to sit down over coffee with the iranian terrorist regime.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#55)

On shock and awe:

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.

The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight...

"We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.

"So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima..."

"You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2,3,4,5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted,"

Taking out power, water, etc. is targetting civilians.

Exhausting people 'physically, emotionally and psychologically' is terrorising them by any other name. You saw that missile attack on the television, and you tell me if it were happening in the town or city you're sleeping in tonight that you wouldn't have been terrified.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#61)

Targetting stategic locations is and always has been a part of war. To pretend otherwise is pure insanity. Notice this: "It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight... " It is clearly aimed out our enemy. And not one person described the iraqi people as our enemy. "they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted," Taking out power, water, etc. is targetting civilians. Exhausting people 'physically, emotionally and psychologically' is terrorising them by any other name. You saw that missile attack on the television, and you tell me if it were happening in the town or city you're sleeping in tonight that you wouldn't have been terrified. " No doubt I would have been. But as I've said before, and as I'm sure you realise, that is war and that is what happens. Minimising civilian casualties is what makes us different from the animals that target civilians.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#65)

I could, of course, give you examples of when 'coalition' forces did, apparently, target civilians. But I don't want to fall into a trap of permanent recrimination, permanent blame, permanent attack. That is the stuff of the failed war policy. We need to get beyond the tragic mistake of our Iraq policy, and do so without recrimination and retaliation.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#66)

Yes, and I could give you examples of where these folks have been charged and convicted for their crimes. I find it extraordinary that you would smear an entire army based on the actions of so few. Another clear difference between the two sides.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#71)

I'm not talking about the acts of individual soldiers. Apart from in those handful of cases where individual soldiers have clearly acted appallingly (and, in some cases, have been convicted, as you say) the soldiers have my utmost sympathy. I'm talking about where the orders appear to have targeted civilians.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#72)

There is absolutely no proof any such orders were given.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#25)

Loz launched a completely unprovoked and unjustified attack on Susan Press, suggesting that she wanted the Tories to win the next election. This was an outrageous attack on a long-standing Labour Councillor who has been active in the party for 30 years. Therefore, I was more than justified in asking Loz just how active he is in the party.

The attack was particularly unfortunate coming from an out-and-out proud supporter of Tories, albeit of the French and American variety.

If Loz can't take it, I suggests he doesn't deal it out in the first place.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#32)

Instead pf damning Sarkozy and Guliani by their party affliation, why not try talking about what you find so bad about them?

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#38)

Sarkozy is a Thatcherite, and although I like Guliani, I think he is more conservative than he lets on.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#40)

Quite - he's a Thatcherite who wants to cut public sector jobs, slash welfare, decrease job security, cut taxes for the rich and increase immigration controls. Furthermore, he's a rightwing demagogue - take his comments during the riots in 2005, for example.

Frankly it is ludicrous that any member of a democratic socialist party would support such an overtly reactionary politician.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#44)

My main gripe was with Royal, not paticuarly the case that I was a 'fan' of Sarkozy. That said, it is a quite well know fact that some members of the Labour Party were quite supportive of Sarkozy.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#51)

Again, you don't support a candidate who is from the europeian party with the Tories. Look at his policies and his comments and see for yourself if someone from a social democratic party should support this man.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#53)

You go and preach to those Labour Mps and members that did then. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear of it. Again, from my own perspective, it wasn't a case of 'supporting' sarkozy, it was more the case that I couldn't stand Royal. Evidently, the French agreed.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#56)

The british people also approved Thatcher.

Re: Gordon's Time Runs Out (#27)

we had 9.5 million, and a 62% turnout rather than a 72% turnout. But owing to smaller population in 1983, it means proportionally, we got more votes