Crazysheep

It's always like that.....the politically minded are always upper class, and stirring up protests can nearly always be classed as political.

The only thing I can think of is he's talking to IsThatYouJohnWayne, saying anyone who criticises the US military should be locked up.......but I somehow doubt that.

*pulls hair out* I was responding to your criticisms of France defending Iraq because of their oil contracts, saying criticism is hypocritical because the USA has done exactly the same before, except with violence rather than complaining a lot......so it's related to this gulf war.

Yes, and no. Â The USA kept Saddam in power to keep President Bush from looking like an Iraqi-slaughtering monster. Â France n' friends wanted to keep him in power because of, among a lot of other reasons, money. Â Is it a coincidence that the Iraqis used German made underground bunkers and Russian and French made weapons? Â What about all the secret contracts with German and Russian companies that have come out since the war? First of all, that IS a selfish reason. And secondly, I said before, not after, the first gulf war. That's the 20 years previously. Saddam was once an assassin for the CIA, you know.....when he was allied with America and co-operated with them by exporting oil for cheap prices, they assisted him in the war against Iran, by bombing Iranian oil refinieries and giving him chemical weapons, the same chemical weapons that killed the Kurds. Now, this is worse than what the anti-war countries did in the second gulf war as they did not ever use military force in Iraq to defend it's oil supplies from the USA.

I was wondering if any Brits here are getting concerned about the growing strength of the Nazi party....I've been doing work experience as an electrician, and spent today changing lights in blocks of flats and courts, (these are where the poor people live....a bit like the areas for proletarians in 1984 I got the impression) and I was startled at the amount of racist and pro BNP graffiti I saw sprawled across walls; papers like the Daily Mail are spreading a harmful message that asylum seekers are coming into this country and stealing our money, jobs, houses, and also causing criminal activity. We know this is bullshit, but the BNP (British National Party) is attracting lots of voters now, and is a major party. It even has a say in government, as it won one seat in a town near to me.....also, they have been seen handing out leaflets outside schools. With the young and impressionable already being told by TV that the Islamic terrorists are the baddies, this could have a lerger effect than expected. I am worried for the next elections for a number of reasons; 1) "Middle England" will not vote too much. Only those with extreme, or any views, will vote. 2) People are increasingly scared of Islamic terrorism, and as people with little education class foreigners in roughly the same bracket, xenophobia is increasing. 3) Because a lot of the Labour partys original supporters, the left wingers, have fallen out with him they will go to other parties. Unfortunatly, the left is unlikely to vote conservative, so it will be Lib Dems and the socialist workers party.....neither of these have a cat in hells chance of success, which would mean that the BNP would have more seats in comparison to the Labour parties falling power. 4) After it has enough support, the BNP is unlikely to wait to be elected I think.....it may do something similar to Hitler (that fire in German parliament) or other corrupt ways of acheiving power. Am I being alarmist, or is there a genuine reason to worry about how the BNPs power?

I would say he looked more like he was constipated, or chewing on a wasp at the very least.

Speaking of British television, State of Play is opposite to Ultimate Force in every possible way. Most fundamentally is the fact that it's actually good.

Well, considering I've just said I was doing work experience, you can safely say I'm too young to have watched the Young Ones. The thing that bugs me, is the fact it isn't about them being asylum seekers or immigrants; it's because they're different. Someone was saying to me he has no problem with people coming to this country because there's a war in theirs, (asylum seekers) but he doesn't like people coming to England to get better job opportunites and money.(economic immigrants) However, this guy came to England from Italy so his parents could get jobs.....economic immigrants, exactly what he was saying he hated. The only difference is he has the same genetic traits as us so he gets no bother, but people with Asian traits are discriminating against even if their family has been here for generations.

Indeed. And this is not going to be helped by resistance forces.

Schoeler, your post is generally correct BUT there was indeed not enough emphasise put on rebuilding....hospitals were not guarded and secured at first, unlike the ministry of oil. I also think they haven't fixed the water supplies yet.....the problem may be exaggerated, but the problem still exists and is a significant factor in the strength of Iraqi resistance; it reinforced the belief that the US was plundering their oil, (I am not starting a debate on how accurate this belief is) and we can see this is definitely a reason through interviews with captured Iraqis and the fact oil pipelines have been attacked. If the people at Washington took their time on the economic reasons for war and nurtured the moral reasons for war, then the lives of soldiers would have been saved.

By the way, does anybody know what the A in a circle means? I saw a few of these featured in racist graffiti. (heh, asylum was spelled assulum......you can tell they have a Newcastle accent)

Here, Albert Schweizer, is precisely what I'm talking about. This person seems a perfectly reasonable guy, probably quite well off and educated as he's using a computer and seems to respect grammatical rules. When normal people begin to have BNP sympathies, no matter how mild, that's when a problem starts.

Good post, and you're probably right but being a stubborn git I'll argue anyway. As far as I'm aware, there isn't all that many right wing parties in Britain-BUT, the conservative party is going way downhill and some of the working class conservatives may be more tempted by the BNP, which with its public perception is more attractive to a young racist male....violence has a universal appeal to testosterone. The conservative party is more of an old geezer thing, and their leader is hardly Mr. Charisma or Mr. Getalotdone. To somebody who wants asylum seekers and immigrants out, and whose parents will not disown them for voting BNP, then the BNP will be the more attractive choice. That is true, but how long will their leader be an unknown? I know that he looks like, but his name currently escapes me. The BNP regularly hits the news now, and it's a matter of time before their leader becomes a target of satire....I'd only heard of the BNP 2 years ago or less, but now everybody knows who the BNP are. Nope, but terrorism DOES boost fear of immigrants.....and fear of immigrants is good for racist parties, as you implied yourself. I think that a devastating terrorist attack commited by a <insert eastern nationality here> living in England will give them an enormous boost in popularity......lets just hope MI5 do a good job, then.

Urm.....what mistakes? As far as I know, the Iraqis didn't make all that many mistakes. They just got the shit bombed out of them and there was nothing they could do about it.

Eeeeh? Where the hell did I suggest that Islamic terrorists are good people? Or, perhaps, you are getting mixed up with followers of Islam and Islamic extremists? This is precisely the problem I was addressing......people group together everyone who looks eastern with potential terrorists. And of course they aren't led by Hitler-he's dead, you see. But they are led mainly by racist tatooed skinheads who organise violence against Islamic people....e.g, my dad works in a really rough school and a student who is a member of the BNP was talking about going a Turkey/England football match, except he has no interest in football. My guess is the spouts of violence that took place there (controlled exceptionally by the police, I might add) were planned by the BNP. And as for your last comment......

Shows the resistance is strengthening. This is the first attack on Britons, but the US troops have had them daily since the start of the month. They also injured 8, 2 of which are critically wounded....unfortunatly, no news station cares about how many Iraqis were killed so it is difficult to know how organised they are. If no were killed, then they must have organised extraction which would suggest they are organised. Why, oh why, are the western news stations so damn useless?

But not TOO HIGH. I would want to hang them just a centimetres above a raging fire.

Heh, that's a damn good thing we don't though....we would live in a pretty damn violent country if we overthrew our government every time they did a mistake like this...... Actually, has there ever been something as bad as this that people have found out about? I think this is one of the biggest politic scandals in the modern western world.

You criticise people, presumably the French, (NB: It was not just the oil thang that made the French anti-war. They have both the highest Islamic and the highest Jewish population in Europe. Going to war in Iraq would lead to civil unrest, obviously) who wanted to keep Saddam in power for selfish reasons. Excuse me, but isn't that precisely what the USA did before Gulf War 1? And if you are suggesting that people on this forum are lying, then that is just wild paranoia. We have nothing whatsoever to gain apart from satisfaction from persuading you, and in the unlikely event we are wrong, then we are incorrect not lying. (If you're out there, then SAVE ME, DEFINITION MAN!)

I feel mildly offended you have blatantly chose not to read any of my posts.

I take it you began the quote wars before you read all my post. Don't worry, I do that too. Elaborate please, my friend. While it is perfectly valid to argue that WMDs had been moved out the country or destroyed, one cannot go about hiding the factories that produce them very well. SCUDs are big, this isn't like the secret rooms in USSR factories where they build guns-plus, coalition forces have no restrictions so secret rooms would have been found. Based on what? The UN inspectors had enormous freedoms, more so than any other previous inspection, ever, and it was very unlikely that WMDs would not be found. Plus, the Gulf War never really ended as some soldiers have argued - the country has been under constant supervision from the UN and it is more unlikely than any other country in the world that Iraq could have hidden any WMDs. You seem a decent guy, but perhaps you can argue a case for the war in Iraq that is not just the produce of an enormous propaganda campaign? Almost every single statistic and solid fact contradicts the possibility that Iraq had WMDs. Perhaps you can start by saying how many Saddam killed, and the Coalition forces have not caused so many to die yet? Like I said.........the co-operation with the UN was, after the Ba'ath party realised that the CIA using the UN to spy on them again was the least of their worries, exceptional. Iraq did not kick them out, unless you are referring to the case where CIA agents were caught planting bugs under the guise of the UN in 1996? All of this spying has meant that it is fantastically unlikely that the USA would not have found any clues to the whereabouts of WMDs in Iraq.....in addition, there is bound to be some people with knowledge who have realised the prospects of reward and inevitable protection received from coalition forces in the present chaos. The realistic chances of WMDs existed are millions to one. Opinion, yes, but....

Why don't we create our own scenario? That way, we don't have to worry about checking the news to see if it's accurate.

Pfft. American football is rugby for wusses-they have to wear armour!

1) No, the statistics say that they destroyed 90%....and let's not forget 70% of Iraqs military was crushed in the devastating bombing campaign of the first gulf war, which means when the UN destroyed these this was already significantly less than it was a decade beforehand. 2) No, because they destroyed all the factories that made WMDs and filled up the mining shafts of mines which mined.....stuff involving their creation. It is also not easy to hide a weapons factory, and none were found, so do you really think it's likely he made more? 3) Yes, he did have some hidden away-the Al Samoud missiles....or, perhaps, where these not illegal at the time?