Re: US Presidential candidates
 

Mnnnyeah...but the issue was over whether the presidential administration lied/deceived congress, which is not an issue of international law.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

Hi Lapin

The original issue was about Reagan being responsible for Iraq 2003 because of his policies and the consequences. Whether or not he deceived Congress is not entirely relevant to this point. Also, he wouldn't have been the first to deceive Congress, nor will he be the last, especially in FP.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

I think you're linking two parallel conversations into one and making a leap that isn't there. When we talk about Reagan and illegality, then it's obviously a discussion about Iran-Contra, misleading Congress and spurious invasions, which raises all sorts of domestic and international legal questions. When people talk about Reagan having been responsible for the second Iraq war (which I think is incorrect - he just created the preconditions for it), that's obviously more of a conceptual/historical discussion.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

I would agree. I was never interested in the legal aspect. Someone wrote that we could blame Reagan for Iraq II, and I disputed this. I also dispute that he created the preconditions for it, as no one president did. At a push you could argue that Carter was responsible, but not Reagan.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

Well, I suppose for those who ARE religious, they care what the candidate's religion is. Sigh.

I suppose I care what their religion is myself - just to make sure it isn't something totally wacky, that might influence them to make wacky decisions.

Since abortion rights are a big issue, and stem cell research, etc... their religion (at least the extent of it) might influence their position on these issues.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

I used to work on the British Airways "Shuttle" Routes (Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester from LHR) and met quite alot of politicians - two of the nicest in terms of warmth of personality were Neil Kinnock (and his wife Glynnis) and Ian Paisley, who was extremely tall, but such a sweet man - not like the personality portrayed in the press and on TV.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

I always liked Neil Kinnock. I think he doesn`t/didn`t get the recognition that he deserves for turning Labour into an electable party again. IE ,Battling the unions and the loony left.
As for Ian Paisley. In a way in public he had/has to be seen as being tough to stand up to the IRA and others wanting a united Ireland. Just fighting his corner i suppose.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

so how come he wasn't elected then?


John Smith was better than all of them, shame he croaked.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

I think maybe Kinnock was seen as trying too hard. Anyone remember the cringe worthy "pop" concert kind of political rally he did? But, i do think that he definitely set the ball rolling again for Labour after many years in the wilderness. Or, maybe people were just tired of the "greed is good" 80`s under Thatcher.

Re: US Presidential candidates
 

Apparently one of the primary reasons, discovered when the proles were polled, was that he was Welsh. Luckily the electorate was less ignorant in 1915.