PDA

View Full Version : World News The Goverment did what it wanted.



matthew
06-07--2006, 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by Atomik
there was substantial public opinion against the war in Iraq, but the government just went ahead and did what it wanted anyway.



There was a vote to go to war [for the first time]. I suppose everybody was lied to though ?.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/forei...847594,00.html
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=uk+commons+vote+iraq&meta=




If Blair can do it, I don't doubt that Bush could've done it in a much more conservative country without 9/11 as a justification.


What has conservatism got to do with it. Also what in the world has 9/11 go to do with it. Apart from the fabled 'Pearl harbour' comparison. Even though Saddam had been under resolutions for numorous years.. and had every opportunity to prevent the subsequent 'war'.

Golaf
10-07--2006, 05:40 PM
madness!

matthew
10-07--2006, 05:50 PM
madness!

Why madness..?.. Whats madness is inteligent people saying very strange things with a perfectly straight face.. Inteligent journalists perpetuating pap.. with a perfectly straight face.. thats madness.


'Substantial No.s apposed'.. Substantial No.s did not appose .. substantial No.s don't give a hoot.

Golaf
10-07--2006, 05:57 PM
yes as i said, madness


who's pulling the strings. ????

intelligent people are very dangerous and also quite mad, but to intelligent to be classed as mad, a mad intelligence. madness, educated madmen...

God knows!

matthew
10-07--2006, 06:00 PM
yes as i said, madness



Edit:... oh i see another inteligent person saying 'very strange things'.. well thats if your not talking about OBL as a 'educated madman'

Edit: i hope you realised the sentiment of the thread was Atomics.. not mine.

''The Goverment did what it wanted. '' ... I don't think that.

Golaf
10-07--2006, 06:33 PM
o right well sorry but im not going to argue with you so you clearly want to have an agrument so go talk to a tree

matthew
10-07--2006, 06:44 PM
o right well sorry but im not going to argue with you so you clearly want to have an agrument so go talk to a tree

No not really... just clear a few things up...you just seemed vague. Was i supposed to just insert ''Bush'' at the appropriate point ?.

Go argue with a tree.. hahahahaha i like that one.

Golaf
10-07--2006, 06:50 PM
but dont hurt it

if you hurt it i will report you to the Royal Tree protection agency

matthew
10-07--2006, 06:53 PM
but dont hurt it

if you hurt it i will report you to the Royal Tree protection agency

I like trees... so don't worry about it.

Golaf
10-07--2006, 06:55 PM
so, well i have my ideas about it all, but i cannot tell you because it is secret

matthew
10-07--2006, 07:28 PM
so, well i have my ideas about it all, but i cannot tell you because it is secret



Doh.. thats all i wanted to know. i had no idea what you were talking about hence: oh i see another inteligent person saying 'very strange things' but i imagine ''well thats if your not talking about OBL as a 'educated madman''' was seemingly a 'arguement'.

You can tell me.. i'm good with secrets..

Lunar Seed
10-07--2006, 07:41 PM
Matthew, i don't understand what you are saying...
Are you saying that the govenment did not lie???

If so then I think you are a poor deluded fool, who has swallowed pernicious propaganda hook, line and sinker, and I would suggest that you go and read George Orwell....




There was a vote to go to war [for the first time]. I suppose everybody was lied to though ?.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/forei...847594,00.html
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=uk+commons+vote+iraq&meta=

What has conservatism got to do with it. Also what in the world has 9/11 go to do with it. Apart from the fabled 'Pearl harbour' comparison. Even though Saddam had been under resolutions for numorous years.. and had every opportunity to prevent the subsequent 'war'.

Yes it would appear that everybody WAS lied to.
From the BBC article that came up in the Google search:
"Earlier, in one of the most important speeches of his career, the prime minister said the only people who would suffer if Saddam is not tackled will be the Iraqi people."
Well that clearly proves that he was lying about the reasons for the war. (i.e. that we were in danger from WMDs)

matthew
10-07--2006, 08:23 PM
Matthew, i don't understand what you are saying...
Are you saying that the govenment did not lie???


How can you lie if what you think at the time.. you think is correct. With hindsight NOW we can se it turned out to be false. Thats a misjudgement...and has been aknowledged.

''the government just went ahead and did what it wanted anyway'' Now that is a lie by any definition. Don't you think ?. OR is it a slight misrepresentation of a given set of words, taken out of context [on my part]?.


If so then I think you are a poor deluded fool, who has swallowed pernicious propaganda hook, line and sinker, and I would suggest that you go and read George Orwell....

I have read George Orwell. i'm not going to view current situations through the prism of old ideas. We don't know what he would have made of current situations.







Yes it would appear that everybody WAS lied to.
From the BBC article that came up in the Google search:
"Earlier, in one of the most important speeches of his career, the prime minister said the only people who would suffer if Saddam is not tackled will be the Iraqi people."
Well that clearly proves that he was lying about the reasons for the war. (i.e. that we were in danger from WMDs)


It goes on:

The prime minister urged MPs to "show that we will stand up for what we know to be right ... that we will confront the tyrants and terrorists who put our lives at risk ... that we have the courage to do the right thing."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2860717.stm

I can understand what you are saying.. I think you need to read the whole of the speach... and put it ALL into context.

You can pull lots of differing points from ANYBODYS speaches.. Pro and Anti and make them ''Lie''.

26 May 2006

If you can stomach it..
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page9549.asp

Lunar Seed
10-07--2006, 09:03 PM
How can you lie if what you think at the time.. you think is correct. With hindsight NOW we can se it turned out to be false. Thats a misjudgement...and has been aknowledged.

''the government just went ahead and did what it wanted anyway'' Now that is a lie by any definition. Don't you think ?. OR is it a slight misrepresentation of a given set of words, taken out of context ?.
I don't believe that Bliar thought it to be true, at the time.
This is an illegal war waged to further political and economic agendas, and it has always been so.


I have read George Orwell. i'm not going to view current situations through the prism of old ideas. We don't know what he would have made of current situations.
His ideas are not that old.
He used to work for the Foreign Office Information Researchj Department, which had been set up by the government to publish anti-communist propaganda. Like all good novelists, he wrote about what he knew.
I believe he predicted what is happening fairly accurately.


It goes on:

The prime minister urged MPs to "show that we will stand up for what we know to be right ... that we will confront the tyrants and terrorists who put our lives at risk ... that we have the courage to do the right thing."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2860717.stm

I can understand what you are saying.. I think you need to read the whole of the speach... and put it ALL into context.
So you are happy to accept that our leader contradicts himself so blatently???



If you can stomach it..
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page9549.asp
:vomit: sorry, I can't.
How the hell such a bare-faced lying little mass-murderer can stay in power, beggars belief, imho.
Clearly the British public is fast asleep.
I am leaving the country in disgust!!! (really!)

matthew
10-07--2006, 09:28 PM
I don't believe that Bliar thought it to be true, at the time.

I thought you might say that.


This is an illegal war waged to further political and economic agendas, and it has always been so.

Ofcourse it was.. along with humanitarian concerns..and ''spreading democracy''..

I don't think i will get into the whole legality issue.. but would be interest how you figure it to be ''illegal''.. to me it is a question of what lawyers have decieded. The arguement ''it was legal'' won out.. sorry.






His ideas are not that old.
He used to work for the Foreign Office Information Research Department, which had been set up by the government to publish anti-communist propaganda. Like all good novelists, he wrote about what he knew.
I believe he predicted what is happening fairly accurately.



Well i guess that is a different thread.Though i think his words and thoughts have been transplanted onto modern day situations..with a crow bar.
If you consider ''Big Brother'' is CCTV watching us.. well thats tenuous. I don't know what you think though.. just giveing a e.g.


So you are happy to accept that our leader contradicts himself so blatently???

Like i said i understand what you are saying..or what you are trying to do, that would be a better. But don't you think you are manipulating what was said ?.

I imagine this bit goes in the middle of you sentence and the one i added..

Mr Blair warned that retreat would send a dangerous message to other "tyrants", while the Iraqi people would be left in "pitiless terror".






[quote]
:vomit: sorry, I can't.
How the hell such a bare-faced lying little mass-murderer can stay in power, beggars belief, imho.


Well if you read something as a whole.. then you may possibly get the whole message. I don't suppose you tear out pages within a book and hope to get a coherent and total reflection of what the author is trying to say ?.


The speach in full:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3536131.stm


Clearly the British public is fast asleep.

No.. we just have differing opinions.



I am leaving the country in disgust!!! (really!)

Moveing where ?

Lunar Seed
10-07--2006, 10:48 PM
I don't think i will get into the whole legality issue.. but would be interest how you figure it to be ''illegal''.. to me it is a question of what lawyers have decieded. The arguement ''it was legal'' won out.. sorry.
Well, i guess that depends on who you consider to the authority on international law...


Well i guess that is a different thread.... I don't know what you think though.
i agree, lets not digress.


Like i said i understand what you are saying..or what you are trying to do, that would be a better. But don't you think you are manipulating what was said ?.
i'm not trying to do anything, other than voice my opinion,. and guage yours :)


I imagine this bit goes in the middle of you sentence and the one i added..
Mr Blair warned that retreat would send a dangerous message to other "tyrants", while the Iraqi people would be left in "pitiless terror".
i think life in much of Iraq, right now, would amount to living in terror, so we are left with warning off "other tyrants" then...


Well if you read something as a whole.. then you may possibly get the whole message. I don't suppose you tear out pages within a book and hope to get a coherent and total reflection of what the author is trying to say ?.
Sorry, i didn't mean to say i hadn't read it all, i meant to say it made me sick.


Moveing where ?
Holland
Next month. :waves:

matthew
12-07--2006, 06:33 PM
Well, i guess that depends on who you consider to the authority on international law...

I chose the Attorney generals..



i agree, lets not digress.

agreed


i'm not trying to do anything, other than voice my opinion,. and guage yours :)

Fair enough..




i think life in much of Iraq, right now, would amount to living in terror, so we are left with warning off "other tyrants" then...


Frome that sickening speach:

''I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam.
"But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear." And she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live.
We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means - let us be clear - that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.
And if this House now demands that at this moment, faced with this threat from this regime, that British troops are pulled back, that we turn away at the point of reckoning, and that is what it means - what then''

I think it has its moments... If the Iraqi people want another 'tyrant' thats is there decision.. At least it will be theres to choose. Given our current position it does not seem like it will fall under another tyrant. I just hope we don't take our eye off the ball an let it slip.



Sorry, i didn't mean to say i hadn't read it all, i meant to say it made me sick.

I did not realise that [it made you sick..] To be fair the BBC did a crap job of taking extracts.. That [the one you quote] supposed quote is not even within speach as far as i can see. So i can see how if that interpretation of something is used in relation to the part i added .. then it seems contradictory. I did not say anything earlier, it may have seemed pedantic. As i think we have a fair grasp of our differing point of views now [and were about done].. I just thought i would mention it.. At this point it is all academic. I don't think i will convince you it is not sickening.. I just wanted to try and show it is not 'lies'.. something else i don't suppose i will convince you of :o




Holland
Next month. :waves:


Hope you find peace and a less sickening governing head :waves: ;)

Lunar Seed
12-07--2006, 07:33 PM
I chose the Attorney generals..
Not the U.N.? (international law, remember.)


''I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam. "But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear." And she is right.
This is an Iraqi who now lives in the West, not, for example, in Basra, so has not had to endure high explosive and white phosphorous bombardment, for example. But of course, everyone in Basra was a dangerous insurgent, right?
There are many, many Iraqis, who are less fortunate, who are still in Iraq, who have had their homes shattered, and their loved ones slaughtered in horrific ways, who would far rather that Saddam was still in power.


...We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war.
Oh right - so he's facing the roadside bombs, the RPGs, the snipers, and the angry mobs is he?
There are no dangers of war for the politicians who declare war.
They sit at home quite safe and sound, while ordering others to both face death and to deal it


If the Iraqi people want another 'tyrant' thats is there decision.. At least it will be theres to choose.
Let's be perfectly clear about this, the Iraqi people did not choose to be invaded. The invasion was not even authorised by the UN.
Personally, I think the behaviour of the US troops in Iraq has been pretty bloody tyrannical.


I just wanted to try and show it is not 'lies'.. something else i don't suppose i will convince you of :o
No, I'm afraid you won't.


Hope you find peace and a less sickening governing head :waves: ;)
Thanks, i'm sure i will.

matthew
12-07--2006, 08:28 PM
Not the U.N.? (international law, remember.)

He obviously took 'international law' into account. In any regard those who know the 'ins and outs' of 'international law' and apposed to the war can interprete 'inernational law' any wich way. The same can be said about those who support the war.

I think the Atorney general was 'independant'. I'm sure you disagree.

You see ''strong arguements'' being banded about all over the place... either way. i don't know everything .. so have had to make a choice 'imho'.

I thought what i said was better than saying ''you believe what the hell you wish , of course you will.. heck you're hardly going to say ''this war is legal, but...''

I've learnt to be a little more respectful than that.. :angel:




This is an Iraqi who now lives in the West, not, for example, in Basra, so has not had to endure high explosive and white phosphorous bombardment, for example. But of course, everyone in Basra was a dangerous insurgent, right?
There are many, many Iraqis, who are less fortunate, who are still in Iraq, who have had their homes shattered, and their loved ones slaughtered in horrific ways, who would far rather that Saddam was still in power.



She does not say ''everything is great'' .. she says ''You cannot'' [Mr Blair]. Neither of us know were she came from, so can't comment on her experiances or lack there of.

I imagine the same people who remove innocent people from bguses and seperate the good from the bad and shoot the bad . Of course there is going to be people that are ''better under saddam'' for many differing reasons.. There are now MILLIONS of people far better [i don't say everything is perfect] with out him.

My spin:

''Overall, 70 percent said that life was good now, compared with 29 percent who said it was bad''

Almost half (49 percent) of those questioned believed the
invasion of their country by U.S. and British troops was right,
compared with 39 percent who said it was wrong, the poll
commissioned by the BBC and other broadcasters found.
Some 57 percent said that life was better now than under
Saddam, against 19 percent who said it was worse and 23 percent
who said it was about the same.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/03/16/majority_of_iraqis_see_life_better_witho ut_saddam_1079446531?mode=PF

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm


I'm sure there is a multitude of ''polls'' that suggest one thing or the other.. Shock horror a varied opinion from a varied differing perspectives and points of views.. I think it is better than the old polls of '' 100% in favour of Saddam''.. do you know what i mean.

If it goes up down or sideways.. it is a genuine response rather than forced.. i think thats a positive step forward.




Oh right - so he's facing the roadside bombs, the RPGs, the snipers, and the angry mobs is he?
There are no dangers of war for the politicians who declare war.
They sit at home quite safe and sound, while ordering others to both face death and to deal it



No ... you have a fair point .. however you have spun it , i won't spin it any further. It would be a tad crass. Just to say there are always some consequences to everybodys actions.. politicaly or with respectability.. never with a life, i accept that. I won't say anymore, you have [like a say] a fair point.




Let's be perfectly clear about this, the Iraqi people did not choose to be invaded. The invasion was not even authorised by the UN.


See polls above.

My arguements would get kicked out of court.. your arguements would get kicked out of court. Neither of us are verse with EVERYTHING. Well i assume you have the humilty to admit that. IF a International court proved your case was flawed.. what would you say ''whitewash'' or ''fair does'' ?.



Personally, I think the behaviour of the US troops in Iraq has been pretty bloody tyrannical.


I agree.. though some not all.



No, I'm afraid you won't.

I do but humbly try :whistle:




Thanks, i'm sure i will.


No problem.. i don't begrudge you any happiness .. even if you are dyemetricaly apposed to most of the things i say :whistle:

Lunar Seed
12-07--2006, 10:11 PM
My spin:

''Overall, 70 percent said that life was good now, compared with 29 percent who said it was bad''

Almost half (49 percent) of those questioned believed the
invasion of their country by U.S. and British troops was right,
compared with 39 percent who said it was wrong, the poll
commissioned by the BBC and other broadcasters found.
Some 57 percent said that life was better now than under
Saddam, against 19 percent who said it was worse and 23 percent
who said it was about the same.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2004/03/16/majority_of_iraqis_see_life_better_witho ut_saddam_1079446531?mode=PF

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm


Well there you have it.
Two different polls, taken a month apart, that completely contradict each other. Choose which you want to believe, people.
It really doesn't matter which one you choose to believe, because the occupation and the killing will continue anyway.

It is interesting to see that the more recent of the two shows that two thirds of the population are in favour of an immediate military withdrawal.
That's democracy, eh?


Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."

The USA Today article contains some very powerful quotes, i think:


"I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."



"The freedoms they gave us are satellite television, Thurayas (satellite telephones) and mobile telephones. And you can drive a car without a license, But "I can't even go out because I'm afraid that any minute we will die. The war was not worth it."


If it goes up down or sideways.. it is a genuine response rather than forced.. i think thats a positive step forward.
Check the dates of those examples for a view of the direction public opinion is heading.


Neither of us are verse with EVERYTHING. Well i assume you have the humilty to admit that.
Indeed i do.


IF a International court proved your case was flawed.. what would you say ''whitewash'' or ''fair does'' ?.
i think that it would depend on the rationale presented for the decision, by the court.

Golaf
14-07--2006, 08:20 AM
governments are supposed to follow and act on the will of its peoples.

this government lied to its peoples and went against the peoples will, peaceful resolution can and should be the answer...

Same with Israel attacking Lebannon, no international backing, no peace straight to war, killing innocent people...

Who are the terrorists really?????? that is the question i ask myself

with a government so up its own ass it cannot see, full of corruption and sleaze. No trust there now there is no trust, there is no relationship...

I am suprised why these people are still in government, why have they still positions there?

This is a democratic system??? the mind bloggles...

Golaf
14-07--2006, 09:25 AM
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/35021298/

say it all! one photo

Golaf
14-07--2006, 01:32 PM
and one more thing! Our Tony Blair would not have a meeting with the Dali Lama about Tibet, because he was 'too busy' so he's got time to faff around speaking to people on their door steps asking for more power but when it comes to meeting one of the most spiritual insightfull holy beings on the planet... he hasnt got the time!

What a fucker... seems to me that everyone in this labour party is a sleazy self seeking good for nothing parasite intent on destroying the planet taxing everyone for everything they have and joining monkey man Bush on his delusional pursuits in the East, for Christs sake sort out your own country before fucking other ones up.

And as for that Education Education Education bullshit, it should be Meditation Meditation Meditation.

Wheere has the Labour gone that actually stood up for the poor and needy the oppressed and so on. Jeeze it makes me sick the whole lot need to be eliminated, the Rainbow people of living light along with the Tibetan Government in Exile will do a far better job!


AS long as that dark horrible two faced liar Tony Blair and George Bush can go get married and live on an Island together. hey that could be a good reality show that...

matthew
14-07--2006, 05:52 PM
Well there you have it.
Two different polls, taken a month apart, that completely contradict each other. Choose which you want to believe, people.
It really doesn't matter which one you choose to believe, because the occupation and the killing will continue anyway.




The official handover of sovereignty occurred at 10:26 a.m. (2:26 a.m. ET), when former coalition civil administrator L. Paul Bremer gave interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi a leather-bound transfer document.


"Before us is a challenge and a burden and we ask God almighty to give us the patience and guide us to take this country whose people deserves all goodness," said President Ghazi Yawar after taking his oath. "May God protect Iraq and its citizens."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/photo/world/G11563-2004Jun28.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/photo/world/G11563-2004Jun28.html)

At a ceremony in Baghdad on Monday, U.S. Administrator L. Paul Bremer, right, hands documents to Iraqi Chief Justice Mahdi Mahmoud, left, officially transferring political authority to an interim Iraqi government as Prime Minister Ayad Allawi looks on. (Hussein Malla - AP)



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/iraq.handover/index.html)

True relinquising the full responsibility [defense] will take time.

It is almost patronising posting this .. you know all this i iamgine.. 'The killing continues'.. yeah i agree it does. Imagine if you will if the insurgency and the secterain killing stopped.. what would be occuring right now.. you've got it.. PEACE.






It is interesting to see that the more recent of the two shows that two thirds of the population are in favour of an immediate military withdrawal.
That's democracy, eh?


Come on lets not play these games... i could pull out a 2005 poll that shows otherwise .. like i said

''I'm sure there is a multitude of ''polls'' that suggest one thing or the other.. Shock horror a varied opinion from a varied differing perspectives and points of views.. I think it is better than the old polls of '' 100% in favour of Saddam''.. do you know what i mean.''












The USA Today article contains some very powerful quotes, i think:

I agree:

Secondhand information
That negative opinion of the behavior of the troops rarely is based on direct contact. Iraq is a country the size of California with a population of 25 million. Many areas are sparsely patrolled. Only 7% in the poll say they based their opinions on personal experience.
Instead, Iraqis get their information from others. For about a third, it's pan-Arabic television such as the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya satellite news channels. The networks frequently show scenes of U.S. forces shooting into Iraqi neighborhoods in hot spots such as Fallujah, an anti-American stronghold in the center of the country. (Related poll results: Baghdad: Then and now (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-baghdad.htm))
Although most Iraqis watch the local, U.S.-sponsored broadcast television station, which doesn't require a satellite dish, Iraqis in the poll say the Arab satellite networks are the most trusted and break the hottest stories. Few Iraqis trust Western networks such as CNN and the BBC.
More news is spread through that oldest delivery system: marketplace chatter. In the rumor mill, interviews indicate, every confrontation between Americans and Iraqis is portrayed as an assault on the Iraqi people, not on just a few lawless insurgents.






Check the dates of those examples for a view of the direction public opinion is heading.

It is perception and bias rather than truth.. every member of the human race is effected by that. So even if the polls go up or down.. It won't reflect the reality of the situation.



Indeed i do.

:)




i think that it would depend on the rationale presented for the decision, by the court.


Excuse me !.. If i understand you point. It would be your rationale.

matthew
14-07--2006, 06:01 PM
Wheere has the Labour gone that actually stood up for the poor and needy the oppressed and so on. ...

Erm....where have you been ?.

Gleneagles Implementation Plan for Africa - June 2006 update

Quick links: 2005: Year of Africa (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/g8/africa-2005.asp) | Questions and Answers (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/g8/qa.asp) | Milestones achieved (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/g8/milestones.asp#achieved) | Future milestones (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/g8/milestones.asp#future) | Aims (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/g8/milestones.asp#aims)

The http://www.dfid.gov.uk/images/general/icon_www.giffull list of Gleneagles G8 commitments (http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1094235520151) on Africa and Development is available on the G8 website.

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/g8/milestones.asp


Presenting to parliament a five-year plan to bolster the fight to eliminate world poverty, International Development Secretary Hilary Benn said he would create an anti-corruption task force, closely monitor how aid money was spent and push for U.N. reform.

"Long-term progress in the fight against poverty will only be achieved through effective government and by people with the voice and confidence to hold their governments to account," he said.


Benn pledged a doubling of aid to education to more than 1 billion pounds ($1.84 billion) sterling a year and a four-fold increase of spending on water and sanitation to 200 million pounds a year by 2010. He also called for the creation of a 100 million pound fund to help people monitor their governments.

http://today.reuters.com/News/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=L13835370

http://www.results.org/website/article.asp?id=2153

matthew
14-07--2006, 06:08 PM
governments are supposed to follow and act on the will of its peoples.

this government lied to its peoples and went against the peoples will, peaceful resolution can and should be the answer...

Same with Israel attacking Lebannon, no international backing, no peace straight to war, killing innocent people...

Who are the terrorists really?????? that is the question i ask myself

with a government so up its own ass it cannot see, full of corruption and sleaze. No trust there now there is no trust, there is no relationship...

I am suprised why these people are still in government, why have they still positions there?

This is a democratic system??? the mind bloggles...

It IS a democratic system or out.

We vote these buggers in...

Sometimes some don't even bother to read what we are voteing in or out...[Manifesto].

Lunar Seed
14-07--2006, 07:14 PM
The official handover of sovereignty occurred at 10:26 a.m. (2:26 a.m. ET), when former coalition civil administrator L. Paul Bremer gave interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi a leather-bound transfer document. .....

.......
True relinquising the full responsibility [defense] will take time.

Uh huh... http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/11/troops-iraq-decades/
Lets face it, the US (or the UK) has no intention of pulling troops within the forseeable future.
Oh, but of course, the Iraqi's want them there... :(

Golaf
16-07--2006, 11:41 AM
i do not understand all this war stuff, no i do.

but why not play table tennis or go morris dancing instead? or play frizbe that way no one has to get blown up

Coyote
16-07--2006, 11:47 AM
i do not understand all this war stuff, no i do.

but why not play table tennis or go morris dancing instead? or play frizbe that way no one has to get blown up

Watch an Attenborough programme on any other animal, especially as regards having territory. Now combine that with the ability for both hubris and dwelling on what is best not dwelled upon.

Voila. War.

Golaf
16-07--2006, 12:04 PM
yes there are territorial animals but there are also ones that are not. it is mostly about protecting their young or egg's

same could be said about these humaniods i suppose. Like a Dog protects the territory of the family. however we are all one global family now, if we are protecting our own interests? rather than that of the whole family...

Humaniods however are NOT animals, though it is true that we display animalist tendancies. According to the precious dharma, there are 6 psyhcological states God, Demi-God, Human, hungry Ghost, animal, and Hell being. I suppose that Warzones are places where humans become animals, like a dog will kill a sheep not for its meat, just to kill it. madness!

Coyote
16-07--2006, 12:11 PM
Humaniods however are NOT animals, though it is true that we display animalist tendancies. According to the precious dharma, there are 6 psyhcological states God, Demi-God, Human, hungry Ghost, animal, and Hell being.

Well, if thats your belief you are entitled to hold and act upon it, but I disagree :)


I suppose that Warzones are places where humans become animals, like a dog will kill a sheep not for its meat, just to kill it. madness!

Please be so good as to not equate "madness" with "animals"; it's a nonsense and only muddies the waters of this kind of thing :) and sound like just another expression of hubris claiming superiority to other animals.

Golaf
16-07--2006, 12:20 PM
ok, well they can all go back on their X boxes and kill imaginary things

when i say 'Madness' i am using it as an expression, i am not trying to make any great wonderful politically incorrect statement!

matthew
17-07--2006, 07:41 PM
Uh huh... http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/11/troops-iraq-decades/
Lets face it, the US (or the UK) has no intention of pulling troops within the forseeable future.
Oh, but of course, the Iraqi's want them there... :(

agreed. we can't within the next 1-2 years.

Though....

It is specululation.. like ''Bush wants too invade Iran''. Fully realised by some critics no doubt. True... again 'speculation'.

The Iraqi goverment 'Wants them/us there' so that is where they/we will remain fo the mean time... when that [situation] alters 'we' will leave. I suspect it will be a mutual dicision.

Lunar Seed
17-07--2006, 07:47 PM
OK, i'm not on a mission to change your mind, but i think your 2 years is more like 50!