Don't mention the war!

[T_i_B]

Is it me, or are the main parties trying to avoid the issue of Iraq and the war on terrorism in this election? It's the one policy area we seem never to hear about yet it's still very important.

The Iraq war was probably the single biggest issue in the last parliament. It was illegal, immoral and it was based on a complete and utter lie. What's more both the main parties supported it. Now call me what you will but I didn't go on 6 anti-war demos at the time to see the issue swept under the carpet. It is the one issue that for me best shows how much we can trust our politicians to do the right thing.

[unhappycamper]

1. Now you know what it feels like to have your media disappear.

Now that BBC is going over to the dark side (Carlyle Group,) you are left with fewer news outlets. When the Guardian is silenced (and it will be) you'll start looking at places like:

http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage
http://www.watchingamerica.com/ (there will be a British equiv.)

I also read a lot of blogs.

I'm sorry you have to travel the same path we are.

[T_i_B]

5. If the blame lies with anyone...

...it's the politicians, not the media. The media are simply reporting what the parties have to say on this issue, which just so happens to be bugger all.

What's needed here is a mainstream politician to start pointing out that in the last parliament the government made an enormous mistake in invading Iraq. One can only dream. :eyes:

[unhappycamper]

6. That's what I used to think also. Virtually all US media -

TV, radio, and newspapers are strangely silent about news both here and abroad that contradicts the republican view.

Remember the pro-peace rallies around the US on the second anniversary of the Iraq war? Try Google using "anti-war protest" & see how many hits you get on ANY of the major news outlets in the US.

Try the same thing with the Bahrain protest of March 24, again looking for news coverage for US news outlets.

US media is corporate owned & the bosses tell the minions what to report.

[T_i_B]

10. The one constituency...

...where the war issue is being raised is the one that is getting the most media attention I keep finding. It's still an issue if the politicians in the main parties want it to be.

Here's the thread that deals with the election contest in Bethnal Green & Bow by the way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x2874

[mr blur]

14. No, I think the media is quite happy

to mention it, and certainly to point out the problems it poses for Blair.
I can see why a group like this would like to control the BBC and cut off the one true news outlet which is answerable to us and not subject to any right wing agenda.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Labour and the Tories are certainly avoiding Iraq

Labour because a lot of the possible Labour voters opposed it, so Blair is trying to "draw a line under it", etc.; and the Tories because (a) they voted with Blair anyway, and (b) they have been a bit wishy-washy about it, which won't impress their core voters. But I'm surprised the Lib Dems haven't pushed it more.

To their (comparative) credit, British politicians never used the 'war on terrorism' line anywhere near as much as American ones. Each party has tried to get some mileage out of the 'ricin plot' (illegal asylum for the Tories, ID cards for Labour), but it was quieter before the electioneering started too.

[D-Notice]

3. Labour have also used:

Postal votes & Asylum "fears" to justify ID cards

What next?

Slightly off topic, but when are we going to have our "May Suprise"? I want something which'll "convince" the public to vote for the "correct" party (i.e. Labour) & I want it now! ;-)

[ben_packard]

4. Why the Lib Dems aren't making a big deal...

According to the polls, Iraq doesn't register high on voters' key issues. I think the LDs know the damage is already done to Labour on the war and expect to benefit, but don't want to highlight an issue they were (correctly) in opposition to the two main parties over, in fear of appearing to moderates as too radical or not credible to run the country.

[non sociopath skin]

7. In other words they want the anti-war votes (and kudos) ....

... while being careful that they don't offend the pro-war voters.

So, no change for the LibberDemmers there, then.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

The Skin

[T_i_B]

8. The line I have seen in party literature before now...

...is promising to be tough on "national security". I've seen that in Labour, Tory, and UKIP junk mail before now. The "national security" line seems to be code for saying that these parties are pro-Iraq war (plus all the rest of the war on terror) but I don't think that invading Iraq has made us any safer in the slightest.

Iraq was not a security threat, Saddam was not linked to Al-Quaida and they didn't even have the WMD's! All we have done is give the jihadi's all the motivation they need to attack us. I can't see how that is of any benefit to the British people.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. You've answered your own question.

"Both the main parties supported it".

It's hard for an issue to make the headlines without one of the two main parties pushing it - in an ideal world, the media would regularly pay attention to issues that neither wanted attention drawn to, but that's not going to happen in my lifetime. As they agreed on it, there's no stick for either to beat the other with.

Not only that, but both main parties took the opposite line to the one most of the electorate take, so that it's not even in their interest to pretend to disagree so that they can beat their drums over it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. The Times: Shhh! It's the Basil Fawlty election

I don't know who Martin Samuel is, but he's right.

This should be his moment. This is his big chance. The Tories have their slogan: “Are you thinking, what we’re thinking?” But for many the answer is: “Well, no, not really, Michael old son, because I’m thinking this country is run by liars who have misguidedly allied it to bullies, thieves and vicious thugs, and it turns out you voted for them.” Charles Kennedy didn’t. He needs to let more people know this.

There remains a tremendous amount of anger over the invasion of Iraq and Kennedy is the only party leader that can rightfully lay claim to it. Howard supported the war, Blair started it, but Kennedy spoke against it throughout. This is what any capable marketing executive would call his Unique Selling Point. The Lib Dems should be the true opposition party in this election, yet they are stuck peddling the same tired lines as the big two. It is as if the kids gathered on the White House lawn to chant: “Hey, hey,LBJ, are you entirely comfortable with your projected tax-GDP ratio today?”

As it stands, there is a very real danger that we will re-elect a prime minister who has overseen the most fundamental change in foreign policy since the dissolution of the Empire, without forcing a proper debate of his beliefs. Wherever one stands on the subject of the war, this is unhealthy.

I know, I know. What war? According to President Bush, after May 1, 2003, there was no war in Iraq, which must come as a shock to the families of the 1,410 American serviceman that have been killed there since that date, plus relatives of the 57 British soldiers that have died fighting nobody. At last count, on April 12, coalition troop deaths stood at 1,723, a toll rising daily, largely unreported. The most recent fatalities were American soldiers Manuel Lopez III (20), of the 3rd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment, and John Miller (21), of the National Guards, 224th Engineer Battalion. I mention their names because you won’t read them elsewhere. And if we treat our own casualties so disdainfully, what about the civilian lives lost? Is this not what we should be discussing? The rebuilding of Iraq is so chaotically managed that about £4.8 billion of Iraqi oil funds under coalition management are missing. Still our Government has us in bed with these people. A Question Time icebreaker, perhaps?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-355-1575289-355,00.html

[sweetheart]

12. The drugs war is indeed being swept under the carpet

The government killed another "enemy" recently, a scottish girl in
her 20's died from taking poisoned street heroin whilst in prison.

Her blood is on their hands, as were heroin available to persons by
legal perscription, that young lady would still be alive... but the
labour and tory warmongers would rather kill her, as they are heartless
and cruel people.

Indeed, they try to blame the drugs, sort of like blaming the deaths
in the iraq war on all those damn bullets.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. Private Eye cartoon