Huguenot

Isn't the concept of 'Not Going to War in Iraq' just kind of not accurate? If the campaign is against past mistakes, I really don't see any point in campaigning against history. No-one can make it go away. It sounds like one of those 'made up' protests, where the reality isn't nearly dramatic enough for the protestors: so they egg each other on with ever escalating tall tales until they finally fabricate something they can all agree on. I understand there's no British troops in Iraq at the moment, and for the last part of their tenure they were largely confined to the base? I think it would also be inaccurate to suggest that the Americans are currently 'waging war' in Iraq. It would also be inappropriate to suggest that the Brits are 'waging war' in Afghanistan. At the moment they're kind of 'hanging out' with an ill-defined policing role. A unilateral pull-out is demonstrably not the right thing to do there, and would suggest that any 'Stop the War Coalition' campaign on that front would be indescribably cold-hearted, probably based on no small indifference and patronising indulgence for funny little foreigners.

Is there something that can be achieved? Is war just a safety valve?

Is this the girl with the new book?

*shaky head, folded arms* No bitterness Bizzy, just tragedy. And not the 'dead friend' stuff, just the 'wasted intellect'.

"[HUGE burst of laughter!] HAL9000, you never cease to make me laugh...visibly labelled as such - I was horrified when I first spotted them." It's like Hyacinth Bucket, so much drama.

No, I don't think so SMG *scratches head* I think war is a kind of yin and yang thing that is subordinate to tribal convictions. Fat superannuated Americans just capitalise on the opportunity. I think the job of a clever oik is to manage but not attempt to prevent the consequence. It's like a leaky hosepipe, it's always gonna burst somewhere. In that sense we're in the least destructive period of documented history.

"In what way can we resolve issues of ideology in this country and therefore stop the war?" I think you kind of nailed the problem there reggie, in the sense that it's an extraordinarily simplistic approach.

I wasn't aware that she was a woman? Besides, an exception merely proves the rule. The very fact that everyone was surprised kind of says it all. She had no women in her launch cabinet. Have a look at this - no birds in the 70s That was the world of the 70s, and wishing it wasn't so doesn't change anything. *arms folded icon*

That's how you pay for your broadband eh *Bob*?

"They appear to be having the time of their lives, but if you are not of their number, you reel away from a BBW encounter as you would from an unprovoked assault in a Yates's Wine Lodge: shaken, confused, unable to work out what possessed you to go there in the first place."

Ah, are you excluded? I can understand your ire, but one can't have all the riff raff in. ;-)

Indeed, too true PGC However, the 70s were also highly polarised, so your Dad's POV might not have been shared by either the legal system (who still considered women to be chattel), or the media (who thought women were pretty but little else).

Well it would contribute to the local economy if it was going into it, rather than the def rev's new Jaguar. I don't think Shane is in the minority, I think he represented the majority well. When I'm rational, I'd like to think that I could have made my point so well. In the end I'm not rational, Churches aren't rational, they're demented medieval tribal bumstrap. People who go to churches don't want anything for the community: they want allegiance, control, coercion, capitulation, and power. They want people to bend their knee in worship to an authority that only the chosen few have access to - and interpret in their chosen way as Pontifex Maximus. Sick. They sicken communities and distort personalities. Keef, who I love dearly, has staked his life on the altar of contrariness, something the Church doesn't allow. He is welcoming fascism as self-expression. The tragedy of nice people. The poor fellow doesn't realise he'll be first against the wall after his new friends get their pedestal. I don't mind the feckers doing God in their private homes, but that's not enough for them is it? Because they want to force everyone to do the same. But like I said, if i was rational about it, I'd agree with Shane ;-)

HA! BBW getting banned from starting threads again! That made me laugh. ;-) But not as much as the word 'unfairly' :)) Still chortling....

I don't think so, but I do think he did an excellent job. Sadly, being an excellent hand on the exchequer doesn't make you a good prime minister, I think he's been pretty shite. He fails to engage and motivate, which is a pretty important part of leadership. I sympathise with his sleepless nights, but that still doesn't make him any good. What do they say about being promoted to the level of your own incompetence?

Well PGC, I think she grew up in the UK and she has a good memory, because that's an accurate reflection of the morals of the time.

Ah, Ladymuck, you've resorted to Fisking, a habit of those bereft of ideas and enamoured of technology. It does you an injustice and I'm sure it was an aberration. Lifenet do not provide figures, they provide polemic prose, and very pretty it is too. Your nitpicking with the Greenpeace figures is a misdirection, I'm quite happy to take your high-end Greenpeace figures of 200,000 consequent deaths and compare that with the 30,000,0000 deaths to RTAs in the same period. I repeat, if the major focus was 'health and long life', the anti-GM and anti-nuclear brigade have better targets. This thread is about Organic food. My argument that Organic food is part of a generic political movement that is anti-technology, anti-organisation, anti-administration and anti-social is sustained by your own position. I think the Organic movement do themselves a disservice by dragging 'righteous' political and religious arguments into what is essentially a convenience argument. I like Organic food, it's nice and cute. I buy it, and pay over the odds for it. When you start talking about apocalypse and morality you're stuck in a bog.

Well, we can't all gambol in the daisies like you BBW.

And another note, if 'Stop The War Coalition' is a reasonable outfit, why do they keep rolling out that c*ck George Galloway as their spokeman?

Can you clarify reggie, is it a 'waste of time' because it's not active enough, or because it's lost its focus? I'd argue that if it was the latter, then reduced activity would be a good thing - no-one needs a loose cannon aboard. I must admit I haven't got a clue what 'Stop The War Coalition' is all about, not because I don't understand the concept of 'Stop The War', but because they've branched out and affiliated into a hundred other anti-globalism, anti-administration, anti-development causes. It's all Wolfie Smith. What you need is a well-paid authoritarian marketing director to get things back on course. I also think it's kind if daft - wars are conflicts of resource or ideology. It's naive to imagine that a unilateral pull back of UK or US armed forces is likely to do anything but create a temporary hiatus in destruction for pampered western middle classes. The issues over resource and ideology would remain unresolved. Or is that the case really, 'Stop The War' are the new flagellants, trying to persuade the whole of western society to wear a hair shirt for the sins of our fathers?

Well, iff "..it was part of a socially progressive policy aimed at elimenating poverty, disease and ignorance" then that puts it formly in the charity box, and should consequently be means-tested.

"Hundreds of thousands of suffering children" - Ladymuck you do show a trend to accept any fabricated statistic without the least amount of due diligence if it supports your cause ;-) Anyone who cannot focus beyond Chernobyl / GM as a threat to the biosphere is performing no sensible risk/benefit calculation. Anything left unchecked is a threat to the biosphere including genocidal megalomaniacs. Estimates of the death toll from Chernobyl range from 500 direct to 5,000 indirect from cancer. Road traffic accidents kill 1,270,000 every year across the world (WHO). Even if we accept Ladymuck's figures of 100,000 kids 'suffering' since 1986, we've lost 30,000,000 to RTAs in the same period, and assuming they've each got at least 5 people who 'suffer' as a consequence, that gives us 150,000,000 suffering... Yet the eco-religious claim that 'health risk' is their principle motive for attacks on modern scientific achievements such as nuclear power and genetic modification, and ignore risks that are higher by 4 orders of magnitude because they're not convenient. The modern neo-luddites are hypocritical in their attacks, and would do better to admit that their criticism is superstitious and dogmatic rather than rational. I don't really understand HAL9000's position - you seem to be recommending not just an embargo on GM and nuclear, but a return to pre-tool societies? Is this the essence of the Organic movement? If we accept the evolutionary theory would have it that another intelligent species would arise on the demise of humanity, then wouldn't our demise simply accelerate a second round of apocalyptic destruction? Are we willing to take this responsibility, or are we arguing that if we kill ourselves then it's not our fault?

I thought he was given a plea bargain that the judge reneged on? He claims that if it hadn't been offered the plea bargain he would have requested a trial. Likewise if the judge hadn't offered a plea bargain, I don't see how Polanski would have been free to go. Don't get me wrong, I don't see any other option if the charges are upheld than that he should be returned to the punishment he deserved for a thoroughly unpleasant crime.

"I think, until such time as further studies are done, we are going to have to agree to disagree." On what, sweet Ladymuck? My only argument has been that we need to weigh risks and benefits with GM foods. The only way we could disagree is if you say that we must base our decision simply on risk (an illogical position that would leave you in bed all day, failing to eat for fear of infection). Thing is Ladymuck, the religious nuts are going out of their way to prevent any testing being done. Same ones who argue we mustn't wear seatbelts or that cameras steal your soul. Well they might, mightn't they? Prove that they don't?

Is that the only discussion - I thought he had 'done the time', but the judge changed his mind afterwards? If you're asking whether the time was enough, that's a different thing - but it would be worth considering double jeopardy.