To All Anti Britishers

First topic message reminder :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i54kqvYnCd8

This is a absolutely fantastic educational 90 minutes, I advise not to miss it.

I pay homage to all those who saved us in WW2.

I spit on those who are not patriots of our island and wish it harm.

Please watch it.

Ben you know fuck all about the ENGLISH position,
your just a left wing pussy, you and your other know alls Quill and Veya cocooned in your nice safe hiding holes. Spouting forth on subjects you know fuck all about. Why don't you nip over to Paris and give them the benefit of your knowledge of the situation?

Some Ben, some.

But if went on some Fox news forum I'm sure the impression I'd get of America is that its going to hell too.

veya_victaous wrote:


If there was ever a question as the source of anti British feeling one has to look no further than the British people...

Because of one woman in Bicester?

nicko wrote:Ben you know fuck all about the ENGLISH position,  
your just a left wing pussy,  you and your other know alls Quill and Veya  cocooned in your nice safe hiding holes.  Spouting forth on subjects you know fuck all about.   Why don't you nip over to Paris and give them the benefit of your knowledge of the situation?

Anyone would think that there had been no airstrikes in Syria carried out by the US ...

Ben_Reilly wrote:I honestly think Britain's going to hell, on the basis of those ignorant right-wingers who think they're protecting it. And really, who in right-wing Britain is going to be against killing Muslims Iraq-invasion style? This whole thread, most of this site just goes to show how profoundly they've lost touch with sanity ...

youn are sadly probably correct....

the R/W is on the rise...again

who's fault is that

people like you ben

L/Wers with no common sense. who pander to every whim of "them" without in any way considering, asking or consulting "us".
L/Wers who have consistantly over the past years rammed "multiculturalism down out throats...telling "US" to "adapt"...but not expecting "them " to adapt.
L/Wers who have regularly, whether lawfully or not faovoure "them" against "us" in matters of housing, benefits and law.
L/Wers that have either infiltrated policing, or created a climat of fear amongst our police such that "grooming gangs" were and still are being "ignored" and not properly investigated or prosecuted

yes the right are on the rise...sickening, but inevitable

Lord Foul wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I honestly think Britain's going to hell, on the basis of those ignorant right-wingers who think they're protecting it. And really, who in right-wing Britain is going to be against killing Muslims Iraq-invasion style? This whole thread, most of this site just goes to show how profoundly they've lost touch with sanity ...

youn are sadly probably correct....

the R/W is on the rise...again

who's fault is that

people like you ben

L/Wers with no common sense. who pander to every whim of "them" without in any way considering, asking or consulting "us".
L/Wers who have consistantly over the past years rammed "multiculturalism down out throats...telling "US" to "adapt"...but not expecting "them " to adapt.
L/Wers who have regularly, whether lawfully or not faovoure "them" against "us" in matters of housing, benefits and law.
L/Wers that have either infiltrated policing, or created a climat of fear amongst our police such that "grooming gangs" were and still are being "ignored" and not properly investigated or prosecuted

yes the right are on the rise...sickening, but inevitable

You have captured RW thinking and ideology to a 'T'. However, it has nothing to do with LW beliefs and ideals.

We have reached the curious point where the RW ideology is filled to the top with, not original theory and policy, but misguided and often deliberate mischaracterizations of the other side. Those characterizations assess the external, without any understanding of the internal, and in fact are a misreading of what is the underlying thesis.

Ideology is in fact a collection of gestalts...collections of facts having meanings beyond the mere inventory of the parts. Conservatives have been so beaten up by the left that they can no longer think things through...they are too consumed with gestalts about what the left is and what it is doing.

The essential question should be, What do you want to see happen as a RWer? It is indicative that RWers are often called 'reactionaries', because their arsenal of ideas consists solely of RE-ACTIONS, or responses to something that is already going on. It's an ideology of half-thoughts, if you will, because it assesses what the left is doing, without regard for purpose or causation. And most importantly, it disregards the essential question of, What do you stand for?

Because the question of what do you want? goes unattended, we end up with a collection of wasteful wars and economic policies that are born of bowel urges, and not a well-thought out strategy...all the product of RW ideology.

As the ancient Delphic maxim states: KNOW THYSELF!

Well said, Quill. I for one accept zero responsibility for what any right-winger does, says or thinks in reaction to what the left does.

Vic: As far as "us and them" goes, I don't see a "them," only an "us."

Ben_Reilly wrote:I honestly think Britain's going to hell, on the basis of those ignorant right-wingers who think they're protecting it. And really, who in right-wing Britain is going to be against killing Muslims Iraq-invasion style? This whole thread, most of this site just goes to show how profoundly they've lost touch with sanity ...

UK has had insanity forced upon us for a long time now, and people speaking out against it is a completely sensible and sane reaction.


It was Iraqi aggression against Kuwait that started the intervention there... we then had Iraq under no fly zone and tight lockdown for years after they were driven out of Kuwait... then it was only after more Muslim aggression against the world trade centre in New York, did our looney leftie labour party govt lead us into the ground war in Iraq 'shoulder to shoulder' with your looney republicans...


I was totally against this invasion and take over of Iraq.


As were the majority of other people I know... although I did find a couple of Blair/labour supporters who blindly believed the bullshit justification for it...

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well said, Quill. I for one accept zero responsibility for what any right-winger does, says or thinks in reaction to what the left does.

Vic: As far as "us and them" goes, I don't see a "them," only an "us."

But you support the view that we are responsible for what the Islamist terrorists do...


And you couldn't be more partisan when it comes to your constant claiming of difference between your lot and conservatives...

@ quill
@ben....

the trouble is your "us" is asymetrical

favouring the "us" that are "foreign" in spite of the "us" that are "native"

immigrants get housing and massive benefits...before our own

our own are pushed to the bottom of the social housing ladder in favour of the new comer

their hate is "acceptable" ours isnt

their "rights" are paramount over ours

as is demonstrated by the old chestnut of the issues around the burkah etc

Never...once...was the country consulted on mass immigration....

never once was it consulted over the refugee issue....

now...where does the fault of this lie....
in the politics...

who's politics

almost (though not tatally invariably) the left

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well said, Quill. I for one accept zero responsibility for what any right-winger does, says or thinks in reaction to what the left does.

Vic: As far as "us and them" goes, I don't see a "them," only an "us."

But you support the view that we are responsible for what the Islamist terrorists do...

This is a case in point.  The argument is not that conservatives are in-line with Islamists, but that the stupid moves of the knee-jerk responders have escalated the hostilities to a ridiculous point.

Tommy Monk wrote:And you couldn't be more partisan when it comes to your constant claiming of difference between your lot and conservatives...

There's nothing wrong with being partisan...it's the underlying policy or ideal.  Conservatives are on thin ice to begin with...to conserve means to hold back...to live with the status quo.  It lacks standing for anything positive.  As noted conservative economist, Friedrich Hayek has written:

Friedrich Hayek wrote:'Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.'  "Why I'm not a Conservative", in The Constitution of Liberty (1960) (he is a conservative--it's irony).

So, conservatism is set adrift in a sea of opposition, with nothing for which to positively stand.  It is always going to be looking over the shoulder of progressives, who are actually trying to do something to improve the world and correct it's anomalies.  There is a ME too attitude, in which conservatives are inevitably following progressives around, either criticizing or copying.  As an aside, that's probably why conservatives are so boring.

Such lack of excitement is most likely responsible for the loss of imagination, or even trying, on the part of conservatives.  In any event, one distinguishing characteristic of conservatism is its lack of originality.  The most prevalent argument in the conservative arsenal is the 'mirror-image' argument, in which they take delight in metaphorically copying the form of a progressive position, substituting conservative symbols.  Me tooism.

Because conservatives do not try to practice original thinking, they fall out of practice with thinking altogether.  They follow, not reason, but symbols.  They silly up their thoughts with jingoism and (what they consider) cute quips.  They fall into the habit of knee-jerking it, reflexively responding to symbols...not following the train of thought.  This leads to a certain mission creep, in which they lose sight of the purpose of the argument, and follow the symbols.  

That's what I'm talking about when I say they misunderstand LW ideas, at best, or deliberately mischaracterize them, at worst. It's not 'partisan', it's fact.

Lord Foul wrote:@ quill
@ben....

the trouble is your "us" is asymetrical

favouring the "us" that are "foreign" in spite of the "us" that are "native"

immigrants get housing and massive benefits...before our own

our own are pushed to the bottom of the social housing ladder in favour of the new comer

their hate is "acceptable"  ours isnt

their "rights" are paramount over ours

as is demonstrated by the old chestnut of the issues around the burkah etc

Never...once...was the country consulted on mass immigration....

never once was it consulted over the refugee issue....

now...where does the fault of this lie....
in the politics...

who's politics

almost (though not tatally invariably) the left

Just because the British once showed up on foreign shores around the world intending to rape and plunder doesn't mean that everyone who shows up on foreign shores intends to rape and plunder. I think this might be a weird case of national projection

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well said, Quill. I for one accept zero responsibility for what any right-winger does, says or thinks in reaction to what the left does.

Vic: As far as "us and them" goes, I don't see a "them," only an "us."

But you support the view that we are responsible for what the Islamist terrorists do...


And you couldn't be more partisan when it comes to your constant claiming of difference between your lot and conservatives...

Not really, but I'm not surprised you would oversimplify my view to that statement. I've consistently maintained that when you interfere in the affairs of others, you are not allowed to be shocked when some of them become violent. I know the British aren't used to this idea yet, but you really can't just do whatever you want without running the risk of resistance.

you are, or rather, would be hysterically funny in your duality. that lefty ability to ionhabt two mutually antagonistic view points at the same time

you think we should "do nowt, yet you ALSO think we should do everything

either we do nothing..literally..and that means NO refugees
OR
we do something, and if that means reducing these troublesome places to a rubble filled car park then so beit.

there IS no "inbetween"

Lord Foul wrote:you are, or rather, would be hysterically funny in your duality. that lefty ability to ionhabt two mutually antagonistic view points at the same time

you think we should "do nowt, yet you ALSO think we should do everything

either we do nothing..literally..and that means NO refugees
OR
we do something, and if that means reducing these troublesome places to a rubble filled car park then so beit.

there IS no "inbetween"

Perhaps multi-dimensional processing is a reach too far for you.  You settle for symbols, when what is called for is actual thinking.

perhaps thinking in toto is beyond you, all you seem capable of is wordy quotes C&P from obscure books and articles...

perhaps you think that we can acheive the "best of both worlds", when history shows that such thinking inevitably leads to the worst possible outcome

even the reviled Nick griffen had as policy withdrawing from places like afganistan etc...

coming to a "we'll mind our business, you mind yours" agreement with these places....

so its not of necessity the R/W that are "warmongers"...

Lord Foul wrote:you are, or rather, would be hysterically funny in your duality. that lefty ability to ionhabt two mutually antagonistic view points at the same time

you think we should "do nowt, yet you ALSO think we should do everything

either we do nothing..literally..and that means NO refugees
OR
we do something, and if that means reducing these troublesome places to a rubble filled car park then so beit.

there IS no "inbetween"

Only a Sith deals in absolutes

see my post above ben...

Lord Foul wrote:see my post above ben...

It's just more mental laziness, seeking a quick and simple answer when none is to be had. No thanks

so what you are saying is that you HAVE no answers

so do nothing???


hmmm...I thought , according to quill.....that that was conservative thinking

Lord Foul wrote:so what you are saying is that you HAVE no answers

so do nothing???


hmmm...I thought , according to quill.....that that was conservative thinking

No, of course not. But if you think there's a simple, cut-and-dry, quick-and-easy solution -- either violent or nonviolent -- you're living in a fantasy world.

Quill... it is the so called 'progressive' thinking of arguing for 'change for the sake of change', which is mostly conceived from knee jerk and happy clappy ideological pink unicorn thinking, without any thought about the more widespread possible negative consequences of their hastily thought out ideas and actions.


And Ben... you just said this...


'I've consistently maintained that when you interfere in the affairs of others, you are not allowed to be shocked when some of them become violent.'


But you earlier said this...

'I for one accept zero responsibility for what any right-winger does, says or thinks in reaction to what the left does.'


Quite a contradiction there don't you think...!?


Unless you think that only the you ('us') have the right to meddle in the affairs of others ('them')...

well at least we have common ground there...

but i feel you need to understand the reality of the world.....

turning the other cheek inevitably results in TWO black eyes

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... it is the so called 'progressive' thinking of arguing for 'change for the sake of change', which is mostly conceived from knee jerk and happy clappy ideological pink unicorn thinking, without any thought about the more widespread possible negative consequences of their hastily thought out ideas and actions.


And Ben... you just said this...


'I've consistently maintained that when you interfere in the affairs of others, you are not allowed to be shocked when some of them become violent.'


But you earlier said this...

'I for one accept zero responsibility for what any right-winger does, says or thinks in reaction to what the left does.'


Quite a contradiction there don't you think...!?


Unless you think that only the you ('us') have the right to meddle in the affairs of others ('them')...

How have left-wingers unnecessarily meddled in the affairs of right-wingers? I think if you're not hurting anyone or anything, you have the right to proceed.

Lord Foul wrote:well at least we have common ground there...

but i feel you need to understand the reality of the world.....

turning the other cheek inevitably results in TWO black eyes

I don't accept that premise, that's why we keep butting heads.

It depends on your definition of "unnecessarily". A leftie will think that all their interference is necessary, but interference from anyone else is not.

Raggamuffin wrote:It depends on your definition of "unnecessarily". A leftie will think that all their interference is necessary, but interference from anyone else is not.

I define "unnecessarily" as stopping someone from doing something that harms no person or thing. I'm tricky that way ...

yeah? thing is you are but a young whippersnapper, not yet experienced enough in the nasty ways of people....

the world is composed of 10% outstandingly good people 10% of decent people and 80% of bastards

as a journo, I would have expected a bit more worldly wisdom from you

Lord Foul wrote:yeah? thing is you are but a young whippersnapper, not yet experienced enough in the nasty ways of people....

the world is composed of 10% outstandingly good people 10% of decent people and 80% of bastards

as a journo, I would have expected a bit more worldly wisdom from you

Again, I don't accept your overly simplistic premise.

of course its overly simplistic, this is a chat forum not a statistics analysis site...

now correct me if I'm wrong here but if old bill, walking through NYC collaped at the side of the road, is it not true that most folks would just step over him/ignore him etc...
(there is every chance the same would happen in london BTW)

80% bastards

is it not also true that in the states your traffic discipline is so bad that folks ignore your emergency services blue lights and sirens, slowing them down and NOT getting the fuck outta the way....

over here traffic just about climbs walls to give blue lights headway....

Right rags...


Ben... a right wing core belief is exactly that!!!


Small state, small state interference, small taxes... let people get on with it as they see fit and do what they want to do, as long as they aren't hurting anyone and everyone is happy then no need for state interference!!!


I keep telling you that your democrats and your beliefs are much more like our conservatives and majority of our beliefs!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... it is the so called 'progressive' thinking of arguing for 'change for the sake of change', which is mostly conceived from knee jerk and happy clappy ideological pink unicorn thinking, without any thought about the more widespread possible negative consequences of their hastily thought out ideas and actions.

Hmmm...  "Happy clappy ideological pink unicorn thinking", is that not a jingo?

Otherwise, tommy, I agree with you.  The logical argument for a conservative, as Hayek says, is to urge caution, and avoid the "consequences of their hastily thought out ideas and actions."  But you see, you are already walking over previously tread ground.  You are either arguing what has been (your own existent ideology), or you are arguing what the progressive has already thought of...albeit newly.  You are not doing any original thinking as a conservative.  You end up with what I call "rehash thinking" and throw in a jingo or two for color.

That's the problem with conservatives: they don't plow new ground.  They don't exercise their head muscles, so to speak.  They end up losing the ability to think, and instead directing their talents to jingoism and clever quips.  You snooze you lose.
[/quote]

Tommy Monk wrote:Right rags...


Ben... a right wing core belief is exactly that!!!


Small state, small state interference, small taxes... let people get on with it as they see fit and do what they want to do, as long as they aren't hurting anyone and everyone is happy then no need for state interference!!!


I keep telling you that your democrats and your beliefs are much more like our conservatives and majority of our beliefs!!!

"Small state interference" is not banning gay marriage or criminalizing recreational pot use or shutting down your national borders. "Small taxes" is not letting huge corporations pay no tax while the middle class supports an outsize burden in funding the government.

Lord Foul wrote:of course its overly simplistic, this is a chat forum not a statistics analysis site...

now correct me if I'm wrong here but if old bill, walking through NYC collaped at the side of the road, is it not true that most folks would just step over him/ignore him etc...
(there is every chance the same would happen in london BTW)

80% bastards

is it not also true that in the states your traffic discipline is so bad that folks ignore your emergency services blue lights and sirens, slowing them down and NOT getting the fuck outta the way....

over here traffic just about climbs walls to give blue lights headway....

No, it's not true. Some people don't help others; many people do. Some people don't yield to emergency vehicles, but most do.

fair does...

I'd heard otherwise, but perhaps thats just ex city dwellers angst

however the fact remains that there are considerably more bastards than saints around

the difference between lefty and right leaning thinking is explained in its entirity below

red Lefty
blue r/w

I made my own points from my own thinking... most of which you have failed to address...


I am totally in favour of new ideas, completely supportive oe innovation, invention, advancement, improvement etc...

But I am also mindful of possible negative consequences.



Ben...

Small state interference" is not banning gay marriage
no, big state interference is trying to impose that on everyone and with the state sanctioned legislation enforcement of criminality onto those who don't comply...

or criminalizing recreational pot use again... it is excessive state interference that seeks to impose this restrictive and authoritarian dictatorial control over people... And with the subsequent enforcement being paid for by extra taxes from e everyone...

I support freedom to do what you want with minimal state interference...


I don't want to be paying taxes towards a system that restricts my freedoms and be paying towards places that seek to punish me for for doing anything I should be free to do.




or shutting down your national borders.

nobody wants shut down... just proper checks and sensible controls enacted so as to be able to prevent criminals and terrorists from entry, and so as to be able to be much more selective in the type of people we allow entry based on required skills etc, and so as to limit overall numbers to levels that we need and are able to accommodate... I dont think any of this is unreasonable or what is a sensible system as to be expected...!!!???



} or  "Small taxes" is not letting huge corporations pay no tax while the middle class supports an outsize burden in funding the government.

I have voiced the opinion many times that all corporations should be paying their fair share... our labour govt allowed much of the dodging to start happening... although the 'off shore' loop hole is Not a new thing...


I have said many times that I think that any company operating in any country, should be required to have a national base HQ in each country, and for all business done within that country being liable for the taxation  that is set by that national govt.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:@ quill
@ben....

the trouble is your "us" is asymetrical

favouring the "us" that are "foreign" in spite of the "us" that are "native"

immigrants get housing and massive benefits...before our own

our own are pushed to the bottom of the social housing ladder in favour of the new comer

their hate is "acceptable"  ours isnt

their "rights" are paramount over ours

as is demonstrated by the old chestnut of the issues around the burkah etc

Never...once...was the country consulted on mass immigration....

never once was it consulted over the refugee issue....

now...where does the fault of this lie....
in the politics...

who's politics

almost (though not tatally invariably) the left

Just because the British once showed up on foreign shores around the world intending to rape and plunder doesn't mean that everyone who shows up on foreign shores intends to rape and plunder. I think this might be a weird case of national projection

I think Ben hit the Nail on the Head
the British/Europe fear everyone is barbaric as them

I like the fact the Vic list is just a whine from a old goat that cant accept reality and thinks he is being hard done by because he has peaceful migration and is not being forcibly exterminated in his homeland. Like Ben said this site is testament to how many British have lost touch with reality.

The reality is that we have already had masses of immigration that we didn't want, need, or democratically agree too, and we don't want or need any more!!!

nicko wrote:Ben you know fuck all about the ENGLISH position,  
your just a left wing pussy,  you and your other know alls Quill and Veya  cocooned in your nice safe hiding holes.  Spouting forth on subjects you know fuck all about.   Why don't you nip over to Paris and give them the benefit of your knowledge of the situation?

Well when my mum came back 18 months ago she said "how ridiculous it was that they were treating the refugees so poorly
even when they think they are helping they are just putting them in tents in parks? it's too cold for that, you could see them sitting around not able to do anything. I thought only the USA care so little for the homeless" generally along those lines and that was comments on Paris/France mainly.

So maybe it is you the old man that lives in some cocoon of decades old propaganda that he still think is true. The mere fact you think WE didn't all see this coming because of the way Europe has been acting (incompetence/racism) why the fuck do you think we have been literally telling you this for years but No just like now you think the only answer will come from Britain THAT is the exact reason why your nation is such a failure today, the successful take good ideas from where ever the find it.

Tommy Monk wrote:The reality is that we have already had masses of immigration that we didn't want, need, or democratically agree too, and we don't want or need any more!!!

reality is the last time Europe had mass migration it was the Vikings and Normans since the mongol left you alone 
that is why you lot are so incapable of dealing with it you have only sent the migration issue to other continents for the last few centuries.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
democratically agree too??? so please tell me who was ever given that right? even the goddamn roman empire didn't get that right.


Embrace and evolve, let the chips fall where they may, no matter how much you cry the earth will not spin the other way 

Labour put down an amendment in the House of Commons on the Iraq war vote that there was not enough evidence of WMD existence to go to war with Iraq. The amendment was supported by 139 Labour MPs, every LibDem and every nationalist but it was defeated because almost every single Tory MP voted gainst it and went with Blair.

Here are the figures...



And before this was even debated in Parliament Tory Leader came out with this after he had been to Washington..

Saddam must be ousted now, says Duncan Smith

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388060/Saddam-must-be-ousted-now-says-Duncan-Smith.html

Not to be picky veya, but you say the last time Europe had mass migration it was the vikings and Normans. They made a pretty massive change in demographics haha

Assumedly then the last time Australia and the USA had 'real' mass migration, by your standards, it was of your European amcestors (a fact you must hate to admit to).

And THAT mass migration worked out really well for the aborigines and native Americans didn't it lol

Eilzel wrote:Not to be picky veya, but you say the last time Europe had mass migration it was the vikings and Normans. They made a pretty massive change in demographics haha

Assumedly then the last time Australia and the USA had 'real' mass migration, by your standards, it was of your European amcestors (a fact you must hate to admit to).

And THAT mass migration worked out really well for the aborigines and native Americans didn't it lol

actually not really, Australia didn't grow fast until after ww2.
100% population increase in 55 yearsand about half of that is in the past 20 years(from 1960 to today) is about the same as the first 55 years of settlement (from the existing aboriginal population of about 1 million)

In my life time Australia population has grown by over 35%, Sydney has grown by over 100% in just 25 years.
the UK has grown by 20% in the last 50 years.
So I think the fact Sydney grew 5 times more in half the time does give me the right to laugh at those suggesting the UK is unmanageable, too fast, unprecedented and the like.


Exactly Les learn by other mistakes...
the Maori who DEALT WITH IT had and have it a fuck tonne better. Adapted and evolved to the changes in their world, as life is supposed to do for it's continued existence


And why do you think I would hate to admit it? Yes we descend for the barbaric European   
we have evolved into Australians. the process is quick once you untie the dead weight of tradition from around the neck.  also it shows that regardless of how barbaric and backward the original culture any can evolve into something better and more capable of dealing with future challenges.



And it is not like it is this one issue it is all of them!
we have stormee posting videos to have a whinge at saying" what can be done? ohh it so terrible, all is lost" with out realizing that it was a couple of years of and had been dealt with over a year ago because it was from Australia. I think when, and most British poster on here agreed with him, a peoples find a issue unsolvable when they are only introduced to it after it has already been solved rather humorous... I don't think i have seen any suggestion but have a cry and wish things were magically like the were last century posted by a British person (except maybe didge)  I have plenty of exposure to french people too and they are the same, tradition tradition tradition.
well all the weight of tradition has made Europe so slow to move it has rendered itself incapable of efficient governance.

Irn Bru wrote:Labour put down an amendment in the House of Commons on the Iraq war vote that there was not enough evidence of WMD existence to go to war with Iraq. The amendment was supported by 139 Labour MPs, every LibDem and every nationalist but it was defeated because almost every single Tory MP voted gainst it and went with Blair.

Here are the figures...



And before this was even debated in Parliament Tory Leader came out with this after he had been to Washington..

Saddam must be ousted now, says Duncan Smith

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1388060/Saddam-must-be-ousted-now-says-Duncan-Smith.html

Or you could say it was defeated because 245 Labour MPs voted against it. 139 Tories would not have been enough on their own.

veya_victaous wrote:

nicko wrote:Ben you know fuck all about the ENGLISH position,  
your just a left wing pussy,  you and your other know alls Quill and Veya  cocooned in your nice safe hiding holes.  Spouting forth on subjects you know fuck all about.   Why don't you nip over to Paris and give them the benefit of your knowledge of the situation?

Well when my mum came back 18 months ago she said "how ridiculous it was that they were treating the refugees so poorly
even when they think they are helping they are just putting them in tents in parks? it's too cold for that, you could see them sitting around not able to do anything. I thought only the USA care so little for the homeless" generally along those lines and that was comments on Paris/France mainly.

So maybe it is you the old man that lives in some cocoon of decades old propaganda that he still think is true. The mere fact you think WE didn't all see this coming because of the way Europe has been acting (incompetence/racism) why the fuck do you think we have been literally telling you this for years but No just like now you think the only answer will come from Britain THAT is the exact reason why your nation is such a failure today, the successful take good ideas from where ever the find it.

Have you see the video of the castle that they housed 360 refugees in, in Sweden, I think it was?
The refugees moaned like fuck about it - moaned about the castle and "slow internet"

Did you see it?


Perhaps they just like to moan

WHAT A FUCKING KNOW ALL YOU ARE,why don't you shut your mouth and give your arse a chance!!!

nicko wrote:WHAT A FUCKING KNOW ALL YOU ARE,why   don't you shut your mouth and give  your arse a chance!!!

Eds??  Are you willing to give your arse a chance?  

May we watch?  

Quill, you really are a lost cause.

Sigh. Why is my arse always mentioned?