52nd State

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by towny

Agreed, we must be careful if tempted to try to occupy the moral high ground. But I can think of at least 300,000 people who would testify that Saddam is indeed insane and undemocratic.

Yes, but who are we to say this is reason to remove them. Did the pope start a war with england when we burnt catholics.
If we say all countries must be democratic we will set a dangerious precadent and then pretty soon any country without a MCdonalds will be 'liberated'

America has banned communist parties in their own country - if it was up to them the whole world would be banned. This fundamentally defies the point of democracy and each countries soverignty.

Originally Posted by downquark1

The article was terrible 1st of all
Where is the proof we are safer. Now we have Iraqi terrriorists who now without a government will have no fear to attack us.Sadam was a terrible man but the problems with the war were:The government lied to the people about WOMD - how can we be a free democratic country if the government fills us with no just propaganda but straight lies??

I don't believe the UK government knowingly lied about WMD. Given that the Saddam Hussein dictatorship were so stubborn in regard to allowing a full UN weapons inspection what esle can we assume. If he had no WMD why did he not allow complete and unfettered access to all military sites and his umpteen palaces.

Originally Posted by downquark1

We accept we have no jurisdiction in iraq without UN support - what was the basis for war? Self defense from something we have no evidence off. We can't just attack a country because they may be a treat to us. This is enforcing your will and values and thus becoming a dictator/conquer yourself.

There were sufficient past UN resolutions that gave backing to allied intervention, in any case the UN is stuffed with timeserving politicians, though not all, who live a glamorous lifestyle at the expense of their own home country's taxes. Even the UN human right committtee is headed by Gadafi who has no interest in Human rights and apologises for mugabe's terror regime in Zimbabwe.


Rather puzzled about "Since we still have a monarchy tecnically in power we wouldn't grade as a US style democracy. If the queen decided to dissolved the government and take over the country will america attack us?"

We do have a constitutional monarchy and Parliament is supreme, not sure queenie would want to takeover the country as she can't control the antics of her children.

[downquark1]

We do have a constitutional monarchy and Parliament is supreme, not sure queenie would want to takeover the country as she can't control the antics of her children.

OK, bad example - what if the BNP got democratically elected and started deporting anyone with foreign blood in the last 3 generations - would the US do anything about that? Same question if we were an oil rich country,

Originally Posted by downquark1

OK, bad example - what if the BNP got democratically elected and started deporting anyone with foreign blood in the last 3 generations - would the US do anything about that? Same question if we were an oil rich country,

1. I am under the impression the UK is an oil rich country.

2. Given your new example: I would hope that friendly democratic governments would at the very least impose economic and political sanctions on the UK. But given that the UN Human Rights Committee is led by Gadafi it's likely he would quite like a BNP government as they would have so much in common. Note that the Kenyan government now wants to expel 10,000 people of Asian origin one can only say the silence is deafening. The Zimbabwe government has been engaging in ethnic cleansing and again there is silence.

Originally Posted by downquark1

America has banned communist parties in their own country - if it was up to them the whole world would be banned. This fundamentally defies the point of democracy and each countries soverignty.

Oh dear! Wrong again. The Communist Party of the USA is a legal entity, it has not been banned, these days it's a living museum, an irrelevant relic of the past.
The Communist Party in Iraq was illegal under Sadam Hussein and he murdered many of its militants whilst receiving weapons from the then USSR.

[downquark1]

In Oct., 1949, 11 top Communist leaders were convicted on charges of conspiring to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government. In June, 1951, the Supreme Court found the Smith Act of 1940, under which the convictions had been obtained, constitutional, and the government proceeded to bring many lesser Communist officials to trial. In 1950 the McCarran Internal Security Act required that all Communist and Communist-dominated organizations register with the federal government the names of all members and contributors, and the Communist Control Act of 1954 further strengthened the provisions of the McCarran Act by providing severe penalties for Communists who failed to register, denying collective bargaining power to Communist-dominated unions, and taking away the †œrights, privileges and immunitiesââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� of the Communist party as a legal organization. At the same time many states passed †œlittle Smith Acts,ââ‚ƚ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ� with such provisions as the requirement of loyalty oaths from state employees and the denial of a place on the ballot to Communist parties. This was also the period of Senator Joseph McCarthyââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s hysterical search for Communists in all branches of government.

The Communist Party in Iraq was illegal under Sadam Hussein and he murdered many of its militants whilst receiving weapons from the then USSR.

Well at least they agreed on one thing.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Well at least they agreed on one thing.

Sorry but you are out of date. You will find the web site on:

http://www.cpusa.org/

The CPUSA was indeed not banned, though its leaders did experience harassment on the dates quoted and suffered under Senator McCarthy's hysteria. But in this period it changed its name temporarily to the Communist Political Association under its General Secretary Earl Browder to get around restrictions.

There can never be any comparison in the treatment of CPUSA militants and those who suffered under Sadam Hussein. US Communists were not murdered by the state, life may have been uncomfortable but they were not murdered as in Iraq.

I repeat that the Communist Party of the USA is a legal entity and I suspect its members would be quite surprised to read what you have suggested.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

The assumption that people protesting are doing so simply because the West "won" the cold war is simply absurd. This ties into the previous statements that the journalist made, deriding the organisers communist beliefs. This journalist seems to have the very much mistaken belief that not wanting a war somehow equates to being a communist.

No, he is just pointing out the dubious credentials that the leaders of the organisation have.

He also seems, in my opinion, to be taking a stance that the only way of dealing with these situations is through the use of force. One thing I would like to stress is that I am not opposed to the use of a military solution per se, if done legally and responsibly

I broadly agree

The simple matter is that the anti-communist rhetoric in the article, in my opinion, completely destroys any credibility the rest of the article had.

I disagree. By the same token then, the communist ideals held by the leaders of the organisation would then also destroy their anti war arguments credibility.

[Theodoric]

Er, what's the 51st state?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Gogogo

Sorry but you are out of date. You will find the web site on:

http://www.cpusa.org/

The CPUSA was indeed not banned, though its leaders did experience harassment on the dates quoted and suffered under Senator McCarthy's hysteria. But in this period it changed its name temporarily to the Communist Political Association under its General Secretary Earl Browder to get around restrictions.

There can never be any comparison in the treatment of CPUSA militants and those who suffered under Sadam Hussein. US Communists were not murdered by the state, life may have been uncomfortable but they were not murdered as in Iraq.

I repeat that the Communist Party of the USA is a legal entity and I suspect its members would be quite surprised to read what you have suggested.

Reguardless of the extremities of the actions the US still maintains an anti-communist prejudice which severly limits freedom of speech.

I do not believe the war was justified under law or morally - if it was it would have been done a lot sooner. I will leave history to decide whether it was the right thing to do.

[Theodoric]

Actually, if we reject the EU, then becoming the 51st American state could be a serious possibility. Think of it; each American state elects 2 senators and a number of congressman that is related to its population. If the UK went in as 4 states, that would give us 8 out of 116 senators and about about 15% of the congressman. Acting as a block, this would result in the former UK holding the balance of power and enabling us to dig deep into the American pork barrel.

PS I've never been able to understand why Canada hasn't become the 51st American state, Surely they are in all but name. :p

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I do not believe the war was justified under law or morally - if it was it would have been done a lot sooner. I will leave history to decide whether it was the right thing to do.

You could say that as there is no one trying to take TB to court over it, that infact it was a legal action.

How can you say that if it was legal it would have taken place sooner?
Surely you must see that with the democrats in power there was no force willing to enforce the UN resolutions?
They opted to try sanctions and diplomacy (and good on them for trying it for 12 years) but eventually you have two choices, walk away and tell the world we don't give a damn let them do what they like, or up the ante and use force.


As the article asked, if you are anti-war, would you have rather Saddam stayed in power?
Would you rather we turned our backs on Iraq now and pulled everyone out, abandoning them to what ever warlords decide to take control?

Originally Posted by downquark1

Reguardless of the extremities of the actions the US still maintains an anti-communist prejudice which severly limits freedom of speech.

I do not believe the war was justified under law or morally - if it was it would have been done a lot sooner. I will leave history to decide whether it was the right thing to do.

Members of the Communist Party of the USA do in fact campaign publically there are no restrictions on them at all. Membership can't be more than 15,000 and they take part in elections, even the presidential races when Gus Hall was their presidential candidate and at one time they had two councilmen on New York City Council, there is no restriction on their acitivities, in the USA free speech means free speech, rights protected under the constitution.

Nobody likes war, I'm sure both Tony Blair and George W. Bush were aware that people will be killed, they know young men will be going into battle, giving their lives for their country, no one wants war, but the responsibilty for the war is solely that of Saddam Hussein and the old ruling clique in Iraq.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Reguardless of the extremities of the actions the US still maintains an anti-communist prejudice which severly limits freedom of speech.

.

Quite rightly so! Communism is a obscenity that has been responsible for one hundred million deaths in the last century alone!

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Quite rightly so! Communism is a obscenity that has been responsible for one hundred million deaths in the last century alone!

Ramrod you would make a fantastic american.

I do not think communism works and they have done terrible things to my family. If it wasn't for the communist I would be in a much bigger house in Europe and very well off. However, this is not reason to right off an entirely idealogy as evil.