gotcha!

> Is there a shred of bravery and common sense remaining in the UK, or have Orwell's worst fears been realized?
only among the loony-left wackos on uk.indymedia.org.

> In case you haven't realized it yet, the real enemy is the USA and all of its vassels
instead of spouting baseless crap, try to at least give some logical arguments to substantiate your nonsense. oh, and i suggest you stop spelling 'realized' the American way whilst preaching anti-American bullshit ;-)

> Blair is like a cancerous growth: isolate and destroy it, and the body can survive.
DUH! Blair out = Tories in. HELLO??? ANYONE HOME??? IS THERE ANY REAL LOGIC TO ANYTHING YOU LOONS EVER SAY?? nah, didn't think so.

Yes, quite at home, no thanks to the likes of you. Just because Blair must go does not automatically mean the Tories or LibDems or the Greens succed his government. It's more likely that a different Labour leadership would take the reins from this totally discredited, lying politico. That people like you, Jamie, cannot see the possibilities showsw just how myopic your vision is, which is precisely the "Duh" you so disparragingly utter. Indeed, your "Duh" is no more than a pathetic excuse for the lack of action to directly change the current political conditions and defend yourself from the powers seeking to control and destroy. In the Civil War, you would have helped destroy the Diggers and the Levelers despite knowing they were in the right, which is exactly what you're doing now: being a bloody rat.

> Yes, quite at home, no thanks to the likes of you.
a mental home?

> Just because Blair must go does not automatically mean the Tories or LibDems or the Greens succed his government.
LibDems or Greens: no of course not. They couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.

> It's more likely that a different Labour leadership would take the reins
let's look at that premise for a sec. Who else could lead the Labour party?
Jack Straw: Pro-war 'Blairite'
Gordon Brown: noone's quite sure, but he looks more likely to be a pro-war 'Blairite'.
John Prescott: lol
Clare Short: if u wanna discuss (lack of) credibility, Clare is the one u should be talking about.
Robin Cook: again, lack of credibility an important issue here. in 1998, undisputed evidence was presented to the UN that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons, and was developing nuclear weapons. evidence that was accepted by Robin Cook. now we're expected to understand that Cook doesn't believe that Saddam had WMD. interesting.

> from this totally discredited, lying politico.
discredited? in what way?

> That people like you, Jamie, cannot see the possibilities showsw just how myopic your vision is
my opinions are based on reality, logic, and intelligent evidence. they're NOT based on worthless conspiracy theories, or bullshit gossip, or the current political "fashion". anything is POSSIBLE, that doesn't make them FACT. especially so in the absence of logical arguments to substantiate your imaginative concoctions.

> Indeed, your "Duh" is no more than a pathetic excuse for the lack of action to directly change the current political conditions and defend yourself from the powers seeking to control and destroy.
the 'powers' are seeking to control and destroy terrorist networks and mad psychotic dictators, with PROVEN psychopathic track records, who happen to possess some hideous weapons, and who would have no qualms about using those weapons against YOU or your family. THAT'S the political reality the world faces today. you should've realised that on 9/11. you didnt, and that's a shame. if a WMD weapon was used in London by terrorists tomorrow, i'd bet a year's salary that u'd be one of the 1st people protesting against Blair because 'the government should've done something to stop this!!'. do u want the government to protect u or not? if not, move to France. what u interpret as my 'lack of action' is in fact my agreement with Blair's policies to protect UK citizens from terrorism and WMD.

> In the Civil War, you would have helped destroy the Diggers and the Levelers despite knowing they were in the right
anyway, let's return to the relevant matters-at-hand shall we? if the loony-left had had its way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today. what more evidence do u need that the left's position was totally wrong and morally bankrupt?

> In case you haven't realized it yet, the real enemy is the USA and all of its vassels
u still haven't expanded upon this baseless and ridiculous comment that u made earlier. in what way is the USA our enemy? please present your logical arguments.