Commons votes WAR!

[Dis]

BTW uneducated people.

The U.S. isn't a democracy. I learned that in elementary school.

We have elected officials to make decisions for us. If we don't like those decisions, we get rid of them in the next election. We don't hold mass votes on every issue for every american to approve or dissaprove.

I suggest taking more goverment classes in school.

I'm not completey sure of England's goverment, but I'd imagine it is something similar. A republic.

[Agathon]

The problems for Blair were never with this vote which he couldn't lose since the Tories backed him.

His problem is in the coming weeks if the war goes badly and the Labour party begins to suffer in the polls. Even more problems will arise if he chooses to participate in next year's installment of Bush vs the World. With just under a third of his party rebelling, many from safer Labour seats it makes it that much easier for potential rivals to effect change.

[Dis]

next year is an election year for Bush. He won't be doing anything. Trust me. Why do you think we had to do the war now and not wait for more time for Saddam to disarm? Bush cannot have this thing go into next year.

[yavoon]

I think it should be made perfectly clear that a representative democracy going against a majority of pollers on one issue. is NOT A FAILURE OF PRACTICING DEMOCRACY.

and all you ppl who keep harping on this are about as bad as the ppl who say gore should have won the presidency cuz he had the majority of votes. but forget that constitutionally it is setup specifically to have a compromise between population and geography.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Dissident
BTW uneducated people.

The U.S. isn't a democracy. I learned that in elementary school.

It isn't even what you think it is. Its political system is corrupted by money and shackled by a ridiculous system and a large proportion of the population doesn't vote.

Worst of all, they don't even count the votes that people do manage to cast.

[Dis]

I'm not sure of the U.K. numbers.

But more people support the war than are against it in the U.S. The latest I've heard was 46% support it. While not a majority, it does outnumber the people against war. There are always lots of people undecided. Perhaps if the undecided went anti-war, then they'd have a majority.

But to say a majority of the population is against the war in the U.S. is just wrong.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned


I suppose the UN could endorse the American military government post victory and make IT legitimate. Of course, France would then have a major say in what happens and in what order. They probably will insist that debt service, especially in the debts owed France, take precedence over reconstruction.

I'm just a little too cynical about France.

But of course, Blair has every right to call for UN support. He, after all, is sending troops.

France will most probably look for keeping its advantages it got with Saddam, as will Russia. However, if the UN agrees with not changing Saddm-time deals, France and Russia will not plunder Iraq as soon as possible.
It will rather invest in the reconstruction, to avoid making Iraq a massive terrorist recruitment center. Also, a healthy Iraq can be good for France as it can be a good client / oil provider.
Lastly, a successful Iraqi reconstruction, with the help of France and the UN, will do good to the domestic image of our leaders.

France won't help rebuild out of altruism, but it has no interest in further impoverishing Iraq.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ned
Does anyone recall what happened to John Major's popularity after the Gulf War?

Not a whole lot, he had only been in power for a couple of months before the whole thing was over.

[Ned]

Actually, Dissident, there is a poll running on CNN where two-thirds of Americans support Bush's ultimatum.

[Ned]

On the UK, how can the frustrated anti-war type vote if their Labour MP voted with Blair? Vote Tory? I doubt it.

The 412 - 149, IMHO, is huge. Better than Bush did in Congress.

[Dis]

yeah that's a different poll.

It is interesting how the wording on a poll makes that much difference.

The poll I am quoting was from 2 days ago. It had 65% or so in favour with a resolution. 46% in favour without. But it still outnumbered opposition because of the undecided votes.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ned
On the UK, how can the frustrated anti-war type vote if their Labour MP voted with Blair? Vote Tory?

Lib Dem

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
On the UK, how can the frustrated anti-war type vote if their Labour MP voted with Blair? Vote Tory? I doubt it.

The 412 - 149, IMHO, is hugh. Better than Bush did in Congress.

I suppose it shows the greatness of Democracy : "you don't have alternatives so feck you" is the spirit.
If the fight is close between the tories and the labour, it will be nearly pointless to vote lib-dem in the next election, because of the electoral system. IIRC, Lib-dems have many more votes in proportion than seats, but the British electoral system makes it impossible to win except in the few districts that are very much lib-dem.
Besides, I think I remember Lib-Dems are free-marketers, so the true left (good part of the anti-wars) might not feel represented by them. The electoral system discourages the labour to implode, so left-winged voters in Britain are screwed.

[Sava]

Instead of insulting people, some 'Poly posters need to accurately read posts before running their mouths... err fingers. I never said the US was a Democracy.

[Shi Huangdi]

Dissident: Recent polls show about 65% of the people back war, even though it is clear there will be no UN resoultion. Whille reading www.bbc.co.uk today, at present 50% of the people back war whilst 42% oppose it.

Great Britain This is a wonderful victory today, with Blair suceeding in brining his country to war without another UN resolution.