Comments for en-gb 30 Fri 31 Jul 2015 08:27:46 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at honestBlessing I am not an American, I do not leave in the USA. The current USA election has become one of the most popular event and news in the world for today. Even the un-educated around the whole world are equally taking interest in it. This is actually a very big test to the American people and what they stand for. Sometimes it seems what is happening in the USA between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama is becoming more important to every other person around the world than to the Americans bcos it is going to expose the Americans to the rest of the world and that might define the way some people will start to view the USA. This election will answer series of question like:-Are the Americans actually democratic as they often portray? -Have the American people leave above the prejudice of the past and proclaim their glory as leading democracy?Will some American people (the super-delegates) rob Obama for the Clintons while Obama is leading? What will they explain to the rest of the world who are patiently watching?Furthermore the issue of Wright so much taken people away in the election campaign and the Clintons are without much success using and amplifing the issue in all the ways possibly to tarnish the image of Obama, forgetting America claims to be the world leading democracy and people have the right to say what they fell , same is Wright. The people should be accountable to their speeches not someone else, Obama is not responsible for what is the principle of democracy.NOTE you have all been distracted from a bigger issue and GOOD Obama have live above such politics like the type Clintons are running. SHE CAN NOT BE ELECTED:1- THE CLINTONS ARE LIARS EVEN ON ISSUE OF NATIONAL INTEREST JUST TO GET THIER WAYS, without going back to history in the case of Monica pls!. I want to speak on the recent, Hillary Clintons lied about her being fired at Bosnia. This is a national issue that could cost the Government huge tax payers money to investigate or any other action on who wants to kill the wife of a president and don’t capitalize on the war zone issue, like the Iraq lies.2- This kind of lies could cost inter-governmental problems or international conflict. She said she is more experience in international issue, Give me a break, Bosnia confirms how experience she is.3- The Clintons don’t believe in regulations or rules of any kind, they believe they are above all. Shame when one breaks the rules and regulation and you say it ok! (Machigan and Florida). And that is a suppose presidential candidate, what is she encouraging? “right of those voters” as should call it. Give me a break.4- What about “Paul vs. Clinton Fraud Case “, she is talking about Wright and Obama.5 She will not unify the country not less your party.6- The Republicans are waiting for her, then they will destroy her with all the scandals and facts, hence the party chance of having the next president. Thu 08 May 2008 19:17:06 GMT+1 proles This new comments system still isn't perfected but let's try this again... Max Hasting's "wonderfully, clear-eyed piece" is not particularly either (wonderful or clear-eyed) but does yes, have relevance to the American experience, repeating some of the standard (Weekly Standard ?) canards that are commonly heard here. Especially in the latter paragraphs, e.g. "it is necessary to recognise that the national interest must suffer if the services are tarnished and become penalised for the PM's political misjudgements." Talk about trotting out old cliches, here you have two of the hoariest. This vague reification that goes by the ominous name of "the national interest", conveniently elastic and never very precisely defined; and the notion that the disastrous consequences of foreign adventurism can be politely excused as "political misjudgements". It is not at all "paradoxical" that Blair and even more so, Bush, "inflicted deep damage" on the armed forces, not by "associting them with some unpopular and perhaps unwinnable causes" (to trot out more cliches) but by delibeately misusing them for inhumane and immoral ends based on calculated lies. That is what "tarnishes", to say the least, the commanders-in-chief and anyone "associated" with them. But the 'deep damage inflicted' on the armed forces is as of nothing compared to the horrific "deep damage inflicted" on Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine and elsewhere by these premeditated "political misjudgements". And "even if ministers" - Repub's and Dem's alike (and media) - "try to delude us otherwise, the public should not be fooled." Tue 29 Apr 2008 00:37:52 GMT+1 NoRashDecisions "athleticism is a big plus for a candidate who's ability to be one of the lads is in such question."I agree, that it can never hurt a contender for any leadership position in any nation, to make it seem as if they deal with the same problems as the ordinary people of the country of which they are seaking to lead, and enjoy/dislike the same things as those people. But Justin, keep in mind, I emplore, that these candidates are not trying to be "one of the lads". They are trying to be president. The one whom everyone looks to to solve their problems. So while it is a great campaign booster to appear as "one of the guys", so to speek, a candidate must never lose sight of their end goal.As far as the Gardian article goes, I agree with the whole overall theam-just because a particular current war is unpopular/unwanted/not necessary, doesn't mean that funding/stocking of defense capabilities should be slacked off on in all countries, including this one. One never knows what the future may hold, and what public opinion will be then!!I was surprised, owever, to find that the majority of the Labor party feel that Iraq, not to mention to some extent Afghanistan has brought the UK largely embarisment and grief!! And further more that the head of the British armey thinks that the main reason the UK needs more troops/equipment is to yes, help fight the war in Afghanistan, but also to "apeas American sensitivities" in Iraq!!! First, anyone with half a brain knows, hopefully, tha Iraq was possibly the most unwise military decision since Vietnam, so to those Labor politicions who think that the only thing that was rewarded their government after embarking on that adventure with us was grief etc I say right on!!! But aside from that, this whole "apeasing American sensitivities" buisness, that is exactly what I had feared!! The only reason the UK government is keeping troops their is to calm us down!! Not because they themselves think its necessary, the right thing to do, or needed. But rather it is simply because we'll flip out if we find that we may have to solve this problem on our own!! I don't want that!! They are acting against their own desires on the basis of what we want/fear!! That's not, in my opinion, how a government should act!! Of course governments should consult their allies-what government wouldn't?but make decisions around what allies may think/do? Absolutely not!! I also disagree with the author's belief, so it seems to be, that Afghanistan is unwinnable. It is if the locals don't get involved of course!! But considering how it wasn't illeagle, and that the world supported our action there, I think given those facts/approval/commitments, I think it is indeed winnable."nobody believes he was suggesting a 100-year-war, and yet that is plainly the implication.Forgive me, Justin, but I think plenty of people could've believed this!! After all, McCain did say that we may need to be there for 100 years, and why be there if not to be prepaird to fight? We have enough millitary basis around the world as it is-we don't need anymore!! I think that add on the contrary was just fine!! Perhaps we may not be necessarily "fighting" for 100 years, but at the very least in Iraq for 100 years, and that was what the Democrats were getting at!! That they think the war is pointless, and they want to get out!! The Republicans on the other hand, unlike Labor in Britain, all seem to still furvantly support the war, and think it has brought our nation instead of grief, glory. And instead of embarisment, pride. If only some Republicans were like most Labor!! The US's stance on this affair would be very, very different indeed!!! Mon 28 Apr 2008 21:52:19 GMT+1 libero30 For a really funny and quite audacious verbal assault on the President watch last year's Press Association Dinner when Stephen Colbert roasted the President. Rather than make a couple of weak 'jokes' and walk away he proceeded to mock the President for 30mins in what seemed to be almost silence.For sheer chutzpah I have not seen anything like it and probably never will again. Mon 28 Apr 2008 21:17:33 GMT+1 Young_Mr_Grace The Max Hastings article was thought provoking but it missed an important point. The military has not only been undermined by the left who oppose military action (without conceding that it may sometimes, unfortunately, be justified) BUT ALSO by the right who have contrived to make a society where what matters is the size of your mortgage not your number of medals. Max says "For centuries, armies have largely consisted of young working-class men, often with poor qualifications." and he is right but thankfully we now have a situation where there are less young men with no other alternative than the army and the military no longer offers a route out of poverty - quite the reverse. In the post-thatcher "what's in it for me?" years why would anyone choose to join the military? To the unqualified youngster it doesn't offer much by way of a long-term career and doesn't give you much chance to get on the housing ladder. Let's face it - the military is the armed wing of the civil service and there is much money to be made selling ringtones than fixing tanks. In a free-market, money driven society the military just doesn't offer the right incentives. (The US seems to operate a quasi-socialist approach to military recruitment by offering public funding for education, healthcare etc to soldiers.) The use of UK military as Uncle Sam's Sepoy's doesn't help any "For Queen and Country" type argument when the country in question is across the Atlantic. In the UK patriotism just isn't enough to tempt teenagers into a career dead-end - besides we have all been inoculated against such stuff by studying Wilfred Owen at school. For the situation to change then society would need to revert to one which generated large numbers of otherwise unemployable youths with no other hope than the army - only Q is would such a society be worth fighting for? Mon 28 Apr 2008 20:06:27 GMT+1 basvdbogaard Let's be fair on John McCain. Of course he doesn't wish the US army to remain in Iraq for 100 years, but he is clearly willing to keep them there for the duration of his presidency.This raises the question how we will know if the war has been won? What are the criteria?Historically, a war is won when an enemy can no longer offer effective resistance. In Iraq and the wider war on terror though, this moment is unlikely to come within our lifetimes because there will always be plenty fanatics willing and able to blow up a government building, an airplane or a school bus. Mon 28 Apr 2008 19:49:11 GMT+1 proles This post has been Removed Mon 28 Apr 2008 19:37:07 GMT+1 CharlieSiena First, The 'quote' from Australian General Peter Cosgrove is a myth. It never happened (as much as some of us wish it did), his name was just used to lend credibility to it. In the US, it is interesting to look at which states supply which percentage of military personnel compared to their population. The more urban someone is from or more liberal their area, the less likely they are to join the military. The opposite is also true. The more conservative or the more rural the area someone is from, the more likely they are to join the military.'t it interesting that those who are the greatest critics of the military are the least likely to have ever been in the military? Do statistics like this exist for the UK military as well? They would probably be an interesting read. Mon 28 Apr 2008 19:24:53 GMT+1 mary gravitt There is not one minute's difference between John McCain and George W. Bush. That so-called Maverick style of McCain's is similar to Bush's "kinder-gentler" neoconservatism. McCain wants, although he denies, US troops in Iraq for a hundered years. That way the US can control the oil after it convinces the world that Iran has to be bombed back to the stone age.Old men like war as do cowards who never showed up for air exercises or those who said they had "better" things to do than to serve in Vietnam. Mon 28 Apr 2008 18:37:09 GMT+1 AndyGilmour I wonder if Mr. Ferguson would have gone down quite so well had he been appearing in his original comic guise...?Hands up anyone else who remembers the cheery swearfest that was "Bing Hitler"?:-) Mon 28 Apr 2008 14:00:40 GMT+1 Reuben33g Pamela Anderson and Mitt Romney being seen to gether is a sign of the apocalypse.How's this for a sign of the apocalypse:A never-ending war in the middle-east. Mon 28 Apr 2008 13:24:39 GMT+1 Reuben33g Was Dubya really conducting for that orchestra, or were they just playing on their own with him waving a stick around? Mon 28 Apr 2008 12:26:30 GMT+1 Candace9839 Athleticism does indeed play a role in people's admiration, and it was great to see Obama so graceful on the court. Craig Ferguson was brilliant and scored some great points himself. The Scottish accent was fabulous, just what was needed. Why not Pamela Anderson and Mitt Romney? Celebrities and politicians are not such strange bedfellows, not since Ronald Reagan at least. Mon 28 Apr 2008 12:13:18 GMT+1 Hibou Thanks for pointing us to Craig Ferguson's speech - very amusing. Democracy does depend on people vociferously advocating different opinions, and being able to listen to others and laugh at themselves. The Guardian's "wonderfully clear eyed piece" actually seems rather confused - arguing for more boots in the army for fighting conflicts that the writer himself agrees are futile political gestures. And the Democratic party ad is actually reasonably fair as these things go. John McCain does in fact advocate a US presence in Irak for "100 years if necessary". Does anyone doubt that he believes it? Mon 28 Apr 2008 11:53:19 GMT+1 dailyrev Need an editor, boss ("who's ability")? Sure you do, and I'm betting that the great BBC can afford me. I'm very, very good (just check out the editorial quality of my site); and all I require is British citizenship, a decent salary, and basic benefits. It would be nice to be part of a nation that is not in decline.The payoff for you? You'll never be embarrassed by posting poor English on your blog, ever again. Mon 28 Apr 2008 11:17:51 GMT+1 ronaine Well Justin, a fascinating debate has broken out on your blog over the weekend, loosely centred around US superiority and the English language.Hilariously, yet engagingly, off topic. Great reading on a wet sunday in Lancashire.I agree that the Democrat Party ad is cheap. It looks cheap too - accentuated by the "fund this ad" bit at the end.Are there any views on how Sen. Obama's Fox News appearance has played out Stateside? The transcript reads pretty well - and it was a fair statement someone makes in summary - that it's mystifying why he didn't make an appearance on the show earlier, when he needed to reach out to those PA "white working class" folks.It seems from here that his basketball prowess was more noteworthy. The same message as being on Fox News, just using fewer words perhaps? Mon 28 Apr 2008 10:50:38 GMT+1 Reuben33g The democratic strategy is very clear:Make it appear that McCain campaign is just an attempt for a continuation of the Bush administration.McCain's support for the a continued US presence in Iraq, doesn't do much to refute this idea.If McCain want's to avoid Bush's un-popularity he must show how he is different from bush on key issues. Mon 28 Apr 2008 09:42:59 GMT+1