[Closed] Are we now at the point where US politics step beyond parody?

Yep. Leaders of the free world. Incredible.

[i]Cynthia, also a veteran, said: "I would follow Pantano to war any time, any place. He did what had to be done."[/i]

Oo-rah!!

Don't believe the sh*t you read in the newspaper, one man does not represent the whole country, if he did then in a similar vein you'd all be supporters of Nick Griffin!

Not all Americans think like the Tea Party nutters, but there are enough of them to cause problems. People like Pam Geller, who is creating links between her loony toon outfit & the EDL for starters.

Don't believe the sh*t you read in the newspaper

So which bit are you disputing then ?

No really, don't avoid the question ..........I am truly fascinated.

So here's your chance to explain why the link represents "sh*t" ..... and for you to set the record straight.

.

BTW, to suggest that support for the Republican Party in the US (a party which is repeatedly elected to power) somehow equates to support for the BNP in the UK, is, quite frankly, unbelievable 😯

This guy is standing as [u]the official Republican Party candidate[/u].......did you actually read the article ?

You have to remember that the US is a militaristic society philosophically based on aggression and power.

I read the article, did you?

He is standing as Republican candidate in North Carolina's 7th congressional district - which covers a population of about 500,000 people.

Nick Griffin is a British Policitian, chairman of the BNP and member of the european parliament!

Don't read what you WANT to read!! 🙄

You still haven't explained your point..........why does support for the the Republican Party in the US, equate to support for the BNP in the UK ?

And you haven't even begun to explain why the article is "sh*t".

I'm really interested in that one.

Don't read what you WANT to read!!

LHS, that'll be be the default modus operandi. I'd leave him to his wibbling if I were you. 😉

The article is sh*t because it is making people like you believe that the whole of the US is voting for a murderer - seems to have worked for you.

It is similar to votes for the BNP because this guy is getting about the same level support as the BNP gets. Less than 1% of US voters are in this district.

Now do you get it? 😯

aP - Member
You have to remember that the US is a militaristic society philosophically based on aggression and power.

so is the UK

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11632879 ]Here you go.[/url] Most of then are lunatic tea party members, but I do do like the candidate from "the rent is too damn high party".

i think that rupert murdoch and fox news have a lot to answer for, theyve whipped up the (un)working/middle class into a point where they believe anything and negative reporting is the norm

at the mercy of lobbyists and media barons
the sad thing is the character assisnation of gordon brown the dumbing down of the times, the hate mail and sky news are all pointing to a simmilar thing happening here

LHS - my point was not that "All the US are voting for him" which is clearly not true. My point was - as ernie correctly gathered - that this war criminal (alleged) is THE OFFICIAL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE for his district.
How can any party endorse this man?

The article is sh*t because it is making people like you believe that the whole of the US is voting for a murderer

No, I read the article and it very clearly states that North Carolina's 7th congressional district might well be voting for a murderer. And it will represent the best result for the Republican Party in that district since 1871.

So there's nothing wrong with the article then ?

And there isn't any "sh*t" which we shouldn't believe ?

BTW, if you want to make a comparison with the UK, you need compare with the Tory or Labour parties ........ not with a party which has never been power.

that this war criminal (alleged) was THE OFFICIAL PRIME MINISTER for his country, and then went on to be a Middle East Peace Envoy.
How can any party endorse this man?

Dodgy Dossiers all round, eh?
😉

Ernie, as I said, you read what you WANT to read. 🙄

CaptainFlashheart - Member

Don't read what you WANT to read!!

[b]"LHS, that'll be be the default modus operandi. I'd leave him to his wibbling if I were you. "[/b]

And yet all the evidence is that LHS is 'reading what he wants to read'.

I just read the article.

And LHS has failed to explain why it's "sh*t".

Failed completely actually.

Ernie, as I said, you read what you WANT to read.

But I want to read what [u]you[/u] have to say.

Copy and paste, quote, whatever you want, the bits that are "sh*t".

Ernie, you sound like you have made up your mind and have your own very unshakeable viewpoint so there is no need to debate any further.

Of all of the people who can vote for the chap, enough are intending to do so that he may win. This is interesting. That the electorate in that congressional district represents a tiny proportion of the population as a whole is neither remotely surprising nor relevant, unless perhaps we can say that it is utterly unlike anywhere else in the USA.

Brighton Pavilion's electorate is a tiny proportion of the UK's population. That it returned Caroline Lucas at the last general election remains a fact of some signficance in modern British politics.

Explain then to me LHS - your relating the BNP to the Republican Party doesn't hold water for me either.

In fact, i doubt even the BNP would stand a candidate who had been accused of a double murder...

Ernie, you sound like you have made up your mind and have your own very unshakeable viewpoint

What are you talking about ? I'm quite prepared to change my mind..... I hadn't seen the article until a few minutes ago - so I had no opinion about it previously.

So I repeat, copy and paste, quote, whatever you want, and explain to me why the article is "sh*t".

[b][i]"there is no need to debate any further"[/i][/b]

Further ? You haven't even begun answer my original question. I'll remind you what it was : [i]"So which bit are you disputing then ?"[/i]

I'm popping out for a bit so you've got some time if you need it.

I'm popping out for a bit so you've got some time if you need it.

Sounds like a good idea, you sound really angry.

If you would like a more relevant example for UK politics then look no further than your very own Mr Tony Blair.

Oh, & CFH...

The differenc is that Blair wasn't accused of any war crimes by either a court or public opinion til AFTER he was elected (3rd time?) and the British Electorate at large did notget the chance to vote on his position as 'peace envoy'.

Much as Blair disgusts me, he didn't stand for public office in the UK after being accused of a horrific & cowardly double murder whilst wearing the uniform of the UK military.

Nice use of ad-hominem, straw-man tactics there LHS.

You can't find any good to say about the original subject so attempt to divert by using Blair.

Sounds like a good idea, you sound really angry.

LOL ! I'm glad I had one last look 😀

So here's some more homework for you : Explain I should be "really angry" that you have completely failed to back up your allegation.

Its all related, you are making the US out to be a bunch of idiots who are electing a murderer - I guess the UK got there first.

Ernie, there is no need for you to be really angry really so I would have a camomile tea and calm down a bit. You are on an internet forum where people have different view points if you hadn't noticed.

Nope - once again you are saying something that wasn't said.

I asked why ANY political party would want to be associated with this man.

Don't put words in my mouth.

it very clearly states that North Carolina's 7th congressional district might well be voting for a murderer

The Republican party thinks the Tea Party-ists are complete nutters. They just get a lot of coverage.

They are more like the BNP but with more jingoism.

Right. Blair was elected in the UK, Bush was elected in the US. Both were broadly responsible for starting a war which, according to usually understood norms of international law was arguably illegal and which, just conceivably, if the ICC had finalised a definition of the international crime of aggression and decided to seize itself of jurisdiction because it had decided that the investigative processes in both countries were not bona fide attempts to establish appropriate criminal responsibility it might, just might be possible to start thinking about prosecuting them for, albeit with little possibility of success. We can agree I suspect that Bush and Blair are in a similar boat here, and that the election of people who started wars that divide public opinion and specialists in international law is common to both countries.

Can we come up with an instance in which a mainstream British political party has put up a candidate who it is accepted repeatedly shot 2 people and then put a sign on their corpses? 🙂

Blair did away with David Kelly but still got re-elected. 🙄

Well, David Kelly's death didn't stop Blair getting re-elected because very few people believe he murdered David Kelly in any very direct sense and certainly no-one who might consider arresting him or trying him thinks he did. So it's a bit different really.
The journo has found several people who think this chap's killing of his prisoners wasn't a problem. Everyone accepts he did it. People didn't elect Blair despite knowing that he had murdered an innocent man to hide dark secrets about non-existent Iraqi weapons.
Can you come up with anyone who has actually run for election who is vaguely comparable to the gentleman who is the subject of muddydwarf's article? 🙂

Can you come up with anyone who has actually run for election who is vaguely comparable to the gentleman who is the subject of muddydwarf's article?

No, to be honest I can't, when you put it that way you are right, Tony Blair was much much worse than this chap.

More 'Yank' bashing (not that the good people of North Carolina would appreciate being referred to as Yanks).

What have the Americans got to learn from us?

Not a thing.

[img] [/img]

It's not really about worse, you're making an essentially political judgment both about facts and about the legal consequences of those facts. It's a controversy,not an accepted set of facts (and I agree that, were it proved, the case against Blair is "worse" than just murdering a couple of chaps). In this case the facts appear basically to be accepted (certainly the decision to desecrate the bodies), what is at issue is whether they are relevant. Republicans in the district seem to think not, which is what muddydwarf regards as remarkable.

FWIW, I tend to agree. I wonder though whether if, say, Col. Jorge Mendonca stood for election in Catterick with a well-funded campaign and endorsement from Jeremy Clarkson, he would necessarily be run out of town. I'd like too think so...

#
#
BigDummy - Member
.
FWIW, I tend to agree. I wonder though whether if, say, Col. Jorge Mendonca...blah blah blah

Colonel Jorge Mendonca was cleared of all charges.

Why are you seeking to blacken the name of a man that you will never come close to matching up to?

LHS - Member

you are making the US out to be a bunch of idiots who are electing a murderer - I guess the UK got there first.

Where do you get that from LHS ?

I haven't even expressed an opinion on the story ! ........read my posts.

For all your accusations about me having 'made up my mind' and having a 'very unshakeable viewpoint' you apparently have already decided on my behalf, what I think.

And you come out with some ol'bollox about [i]"you read what you WANT to read"[/i], whilst you on the other hand, are reading fantasy posts which I have never written.

One of the reasons why I haven't expressed any opinion on the story is that I am far far more interested in knowing why you claim we shouldn't believe it, and why it is apparently "sh*t".

You said, remember : [i]"Don't believe the sh*t you read in the newspaper"[/i]

I also said that your claim support for the Republican Party in the US is no different to support for the BNP in the UK is quite frankly unbelievable. And indeed it is - the Republican Party has huge support in the US, and the BNP has very little support in the UK.

You have tried to counter that by firstly, suggesting that Ilario Pantano is just a one-off maverick like Nick Griffin.
He isn't.

He is the [u]OFFICAL[/u] Republican Party candidate who has the full support of the second largest party in the US. The Republican Party will be urging their supporters to vote for him. This is NOT a man outside mainstream politics like Nick Griffin.

And secondly, by suggesting that Britain is in fact, worst.

No mate, if either of the two main parties were to stand a candidate with those sort of allegations levelled against them in a marginal seat, it would be the kiss of death for them. They certainly wouldn't regain the seat from the opposition after almost 150 years.

And remember what we are talking about. According to the article (which you have provided no evidence is untrue) [i]'US veteran killed unarmed Iraqis'[/i] and [i]'the basic facts are undisputed'[/i]. Presumably Ilario Pantano could sue the Guardian for telling lies about him ....the Yanks like doing that sort of thing I believe.

And he could also sue the judge who said that he had [i]'desecrated the Iraqi's bodies'[/i] and should be [i]'punished'[/i] for it.

Ernie, there is no need for you to be really angry really so I would have a camomile tea and calm down a bit.

You [i]cannot[/i] begin to imagine how deeply relaxed I am 😀

.

backhander - Member

it very clearly states that North Carolina's 7th congressional district might well be voting for a murderer

[b]"Don't you mean suspected but aquitted murderer?"[/b]

Nope, I mean : "might well be voting for a murderer".

Might = used to indicate a possibility or probability

Wot ernie sed.

(Matthew 7:1-5)
7 "Stop judging that YOU may not be judged; 2 for with what judgment YOU are judging, YOU will be judged; and with the measure that YOU are measuring out, they will measure out to YOU. 3 Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the rafter in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to extract the straw from your eye’; when, look! a rafter is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from your brother’s eye.

Ernie you need to calm down a bit. You're almost as sensationalist as that Guardian article.

I have explained why the article is sh*t because of the way it is written, from the very title which reads [b]US veteran who killed unarmed Iraqis[/b] but then in light font underneath goes on to say, allegedly blah blah blah and all charges dropped to the fact that it makes no reference to the main witness being completly discredited and that they did find guns.

But then i guess you would say that its the usual american thing of covering things up and taking care of their own. Well, as per the tag above, people in glass houses and all that.

But as I said, everyone is entitled to their opinion so no point debating further.

[i]Why are you seeking to blacken the name of a man that you will never come close to matching up to?[/i]

Big words. Perhaps you could explain to my dad (ex MO, 7 RHA) exactly what happened to Baha Mousa?

LHS - Member

I have explained why the article is sh*t because of the way it is written, from the very title which reads US veteran who killed unarmed Iraqis but then in light font underneath goes on to say, allegedly blah blah blah and all charges dropped to the fact that it makes no reference to the main witness being completly discredited and that they did find guns.

And you accuse me of 'reading what I WANT to read' ???

LOL ! You LHS, are reading stuff [u]which isn't even printed[/u] !!! 😀

There is absolutely no mention of the word [i]"allegedly"[/i] under the title !

In fact the complete opposite is true. It strongly reaffirms what the title says by pointing out that, quote :

"[b]The basic facts are undisputed[/b]"

And these it says, are the basic facts :

[i]on 15 April 2004 Ilario Pantano, then a second lieutenant with the US marines, stopped and detained two Iraqi men in a car near Falluja. The Iraqis were unarmed and the car found to be empty of weapons.

Pantano ordered the two men to search the car for a second time and then, with no other US soldiers in view, unloaded a magazine of his M16A4 automatic rifle into them, before reloading and blasting a second magazine at them – some 60 rounds in total.

Over the corpses, he left a placard inscribed with the marine motto: "No better friend, No worse enemy."[/i]

Now if you know the article to be false, then why the hell haven't you provided proof, a link, or some sort of evidence, to suggest otherwise - do you expect people to simply believe some unknown bloke on the internet ?

I personally would be more than happy to know that the incident never occurred. I don't relish being told that unarmed civilians have been callously murdered.

Although you have now completed shifted from initially not challenging the claim that the geezer was a highly undesirable character - you compared him to Nick Griffin remember. To now apparently suggesting that he was totally innocent of any wrong doing.

.

But then i guess you would say that its the usual american thing of covering things up and taking care of their own.

And that never happens ? Is that what you are saying ? Do you really expect people to believe that ?

The US will not even cooperate with Britain her "closest ally", when British courts are investigating British deaths by US friendly fire

And as a general rule, the US will never convict (US) soldiers of murdering unarmed civilians.

The most famous murder in history of unarmed civilians by US troops was [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre ]the My Lai Massacre[/url], AKA as the "Pinkville Massacre".

In that incident, several hundreds unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children (including babies) and elderly people, were slaughtered.

[i]Soldiers went berserk, gunning down unarmed men, women, children and babies. Families which huddled together for safety in huts or bunkers were shown no mercy. Those who emerged with hands held high were murdered. ... Elsewhere in the village, other atrocities were in progress. Women were gang raped; Vietnamese who had bowed to greet the Americans were beaten with fists and tortured, clubbed with rifle butts and stabbed with bayonets. Some victims were mutilated with the signature "C Company" carved into the chest.[/i]

This mindless slaughter of totally innocent civilians was exposed to the world not by '[i]a sensationalist Guardian article[/i]' but by a disgusted US helicopter pilot.

Initially the US tried to completely cover-up the massacre. But this vile act of barbarism caused so much outrage around the world, and increased so much domestic opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, that the authorities were forced to do "something".

The facts were indisputable, and those guilty were 100% identifiable.

So this is what they did.

Out of the 26 U.S. soldiers who were initially charged with criminal offences for their actions at My Lai, only Second Lieutenant William Calley, who led one platoon, was convicted. He served three years house arrest.

And that's it.

The most famous known massacre of unarmed civilians by US troops, and all of the guilty bar one, got no punishment at all. The most severe sentence was three years house arrest.

And for many Americans, William Calley was seen as an unjustly treated war hero. Just like the present Republican candidate in North Carolina's 7th congressional district.

So don't try to suggest LHS, that US soldiers don't get away with murder. They do, and they know it.