To All Anti Britishers

by Major Tue Nov 10, 2015 10:59 pm

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.

by Eilzel Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:19 am

How do nukes solves the terrorist problem? The idea is ridiculous.

by Andy Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:24 am

Exactly ,Les.
That is why nukes are never an option.
Fire one and they are returned with interest.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:41 am

Handy Andy wrote:You forget that they hate anyone with designs to better themselves.
They hate aspiration.
They believe they are destined to rule and lead because of inherited titles and wealth.
In their eyes, there are the rich elite and the plebs.

I think you'll find it's the other way round. A lot of lefties hate the thought that anyone might actually earn money or be happy because of their own ambition and drive. They automatically assume that everyone who has any money didn't deserve it, and that those who don't have been "oppressed".

Not all non-lefties are rulers and leaders you know, and most of them don't have inherited titles and wealth, they just believe that people are largely responsible for their own success or failures, and they don't think that the State should be nannying everyone, especially those who don't take responsibility for themselves.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:43 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you kidding? Ben had a massive fit not long back, Veya had one as well. Sassy regularly gets angry, and so do you - usually about some imagined slight on another forum.

Balderdash! There's a difference between inflamed and angry. You get inflamed when interacting with someone. Anger is a steady state.

RWers dislike people, and thus they are in a steady state of anger at other people. They don't like healthcare, they don't like the sick, they don't like the disabled, they don't like children, they don't like education, they don't like the unemployed, they don't like the hungry, they don't like the impoverished, and they generally don't like blacks and Muslims. That's real anger.

Oh...and they love wars. What does that tell you?

Why don't you make some more sweeping statements? It's amusing. Laughing

by nicko Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:57 am

Real anger is Quill when he talks about English people.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:03 am

nicko wrote:Real anger is Quill when he talks about English people.

Yes, and Veya as well. Ben doesn't like a lot of them either. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:05 am

It all depends on what you mean by "right wing" really. If they mean Tory voters, do they really think that so many people in the UK have titles and bags of money, along with inherited mansions? The Tories got a simple majority in the last election, but that doesn't mean that all those people who voted for them are swanning around being called Lord or Lady. The people who voted for UKIP probably aren't either, but UKIP are generally referred as "right wing".

by Guest Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:21 am

Raggamuffin wrote:It all depends on what you mean by "right wing" really. If they mean Tory voters, do they really think that so many people in the UK have titles and bags of money, along with inherited mansions? The Tories got a simple majority in the last election, but that doesn't mean that all those people who voted for them are swanning around being called Lord or Lady. The people who voted for UKIP probably aren't either, but UKIP are generally referred as "right wing".

no but it does seem those voters are pretty gullible given they fell for the lies and promises made by Cameron just to get there vote and they are many
the tax credits one is the one blowing up in his face at the moment and because of that you can bet they will not be voted in next time

by Guest Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:23 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Handy Andy wrote:You forget that they hate anyone with designs to better themselves.
They hate aspiration.
They believe they are destined to rule and lead because of inherited titles and wealth.
In their eyes, there are the rich elite and the plebs.

I think you'll find it's the other way round. A lot of lefties hate the thought that anyone might actually earn money or be happy because of their own ambition and drive. They automatically assume that everyone who has any money didn't deserve it, and that those who don't have been "oppressed".

Not all non-lefties are rulers and leaders you know, and most of them don't have inherited titles and wealth, they just believe that people are largely responsible for their own success or failures, and they don't think that the State should be nannying everyone, especially those who don't take responsibility for themselves.

Isn`t this a sweeping statement as well ?

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:28 am

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you'll find it's the other way round. A lot of lefties hate the thought that anyone might actually earn money or be happy because of their own ambition and drive. They automatically assume that everyone who has any money didn't deserve it, and that those who don't have been "oppressed".

Not all non-lefties are rulers and leaders you know, and most of them don't have inherited titles and wealth, they just believe that people are largely responsible for their own success or failures, and they don't think that the State should be nannying everyone, especially those who don't take responsibility for themselves.
Isn`t this a sweeping statement as well ?

No, because I said "a lot" of lefties, not all.

I presume you don't think it's a sweeping statement to say that not all non-lefties are rulers and leaders, and that most of them don't have inherited titles and wealth.

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:29 am

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:It all depends on what you mean by "right wing" really. If they mean Tory voters, do they really think that so many people in the UK have titles and bags of money, along with inherited mansions? The Tories got a simple majority in the last election, but that doesn't mean that all those people who voted for them are swanning around being called Lord or Lady. The people who voted for UKIP probably aren't either, but UKIP are generally referred as "right wing".
no but it does seem those voters are pretty gullible given they fell for the lies and promises made by Cameron just to get there vote and they are many
the tax credits one is the one blowing up in his face at the moment and because of that you can bet they will not be voted in next time

I don't think they're gullible. Why didn't they vote for Labour if they want all those benefits to stay? That would have been a sure thing.

by Guest Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:31 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
no but it does seem those voters are pretty gullible given they fell for the lies and promises made by Cameron just to get there vote and they are many
the tax credits one is the one blowing up in his face at the moment and because of that you can bet they will not be voted in next time

I don't think they're gullible. Why didn't they vote for Labour if they want all those benefits to stay? That would have been a sure thing.

so are you saying people only vote labor for benefits ?

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:32 am

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think they're gullible. Why didn't they vote for Labour if they want all those benefits to stay? That would have been a sure thing.
so are you saying people only vote labor for benefits ?

Well they don't vote for them to get low taxes do they?

by Guest Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:36 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
so are you saying people only vote labor for benefits ?

Well they don't vote for them to get low taxes do they?

So enlighten me why do people vote labour you seem to have an opinion why they do ?
or do Tory voters vote Tory for higher taxes?

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:39 am

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well they don't vote for them to get low taxes do they?
So enlighten me why do people vote labour you seem to have an opinion why they do v?
or do tory voters vote tory for higher taxes

Of course Tory votes don't vote for higher taxes. To All Anti Britishers - Page 2 2190311264

I expect there are many reasons why people vote Labour, but you mentioned tax credits, which are benefits. If most people were so keen on benefits being handed out, they'd be more likely to vote labour would they not?

by Guest Sat Nov 14, 2015 11:53 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
So enlighten me why do people vote labour you seem to have an opinion why they do v?
or do tory voters vote tory for higher taxes

Of course Tory votes don't vote for higher taxes.

I expect there are many reasons why people vote Labour, but you mentioned tax credits, which are benefits. If most people were so keen on benefits being handed out, they'd be more likely to vote labour would they not?

i don`t see why but you do seem to equate people who vote labor as benefit motivated, bit of a sweeping statement

by Original Quill Sat Nov 14, 2015 6:08 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
nicko wrote:Real anger is Quill when he talks about English people.

Yes, and Veya as well. Ben doesn't like a lot of them either.

To All Anti Britishers - Page 2 Morley-hate-the-same-stuff

by Raggamuffin Sat Nov 14, 2015 6:29 pm

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course Tory votes don't vote for higher taxes.

I expect there are many reasons why people vote Labour, but you mentioned tax credits, which are benefits. If most people were so keen on benefits being handed out, they'd be more likely to vote labour would they not?
i don`t see why but you do seem to equate people who vote labor as benefit motivated, bit of a sweeping statement

I didn't make a statement about it.

by Guest Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:54 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
i don`t see why but you do seem to equate people who vote labor as benefit motivated, bit of a sweeping statement

I didn't make a statement about it.

yes you did

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think they're gullible. Why didn't they vote for Labour if they want all those benefits to stay? That would have been a sure thing.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:34 am

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't make a statement about it.

yes you did

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think they're gullible. Why didn't they vote for Labour if they want all those benefits to stay? That would have been a sure thing.

It's not a statement, it's a question, and it was in response to you bringing up tax credits - ie, benefits.

Are you suggesting that benefits are more likely to be safe under a Tory Government than a Labour Government?

by Guest Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:39 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:

yes you did

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think they're gullible. Why didn't they vote for Labour if they want all those benefits to stay? That would have been a sure thing.

It's not a statement, it's a question, and it was in response to you bringing up tax credits - ie, benefits.

Are you suggesting that benefits are more likely to be safe under a Tory Government than a Labour Government?

your premise in the "question" is that labor voters vote for benefits

perhaps you just mis-worded your response and nothing is safe under a tory government

A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:46 am

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not a statement, it's a question, and it was in response to you bringing up tax credits - ie, benefits.

Are you suggesting that benefits are more likely to be safe under a Tory Government than a Labour Government?
your premise in the "question" is that labor voters vote for benefits

perhaps you just mis-worded your response and nothing is safe under a tory government

A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion

I do think that if someone thinks that benefits are a priority, they're more likely to vote Labour than Tory. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

The Tories are generally known to be the party which is most likely to cut taxes and also cut spending. Labour is generally known to be the party which spends more public money. Do you disagree with that?

by Guest Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:23 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
your premise in the "question" is that labor voters vote for benefits

perhaps you just mis-worded your response and nothing is safe under a tory government

A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion

I do think that if someone thinks that benefits are a priority, they're more likely to vote Labour than Tory. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

The Tories are generally known to be the party which is most likely to cut taxes and also cut spending. Labour is generally known to be the party which spends more public money. Do you disagree with that?

i think Torys vote out of narrow self interest rather than the common good " the i am all right jack attitude " and always will do right up till it affects them and that is why the tax credit cut will be the downfall of the Torys

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:27 am

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I do think that if someone thinks that benefits are a priority, they're more likely to vote Labour than Tory. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

The Tories are generally known to be the party which is most likely to cut taxes and also cut spending. Labour is generally known to be the party which spends more public money. Do you disagree with that?
i think Torys vote out of narrow self interest rather than the common good " the i am all right jack attitude " and always will do right up till it affects them and that is why the tax credit cut will be the downfall of the Torys

I think that most people vote out of narrow self interest, regardless of what party they vote for.

So you agree that someone who thinks benefits are a priority are more likely to vote Labour then?

Jolly good.

by Guest Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:49 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
i think Torys vote out of narrow self interest rather than the common good " the i am all right jack attitude " and always will do right up till it affects them and that is why the tax credit cut will be the downfall of the Torys

I think that most people vote out of narrow self interest, regardless of what party they vote for.

So you agree that someone who thinks benefits are a priority are more likely to vote Labour then?

Jolly good.

you really need to curb this habit of putting words in peoples mouth to support your premises its quite arrogant

by Original Quill Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:53 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
your premise in the "question" is that labor voters vote for benefits

perhaps you just mis-worded your response and nothing is safe under a tory government

A premise or premiss is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion

I do think that if someone thinks that benefits are a priority, they're more likely to vote Labour than Tory. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

The Tories are generally known to be the party which is most likely to cut taxes and also cut spending. Labour is generally known to be the party which spends more public money. Do you disagree with that?

Not true. Tories don't like taxes, but they do spend. They just spend on different things.

Conservatives love their wars. Wars not only conquer resources, but they generate profit centers that provide business gains for the wealthy.

Conservatives don't like to pay for the wars, so they cut spending on social programs and promote austerity. They spin it that such programs are unnecessary and are the ventures of the profligate and lazy.

All public resources then are poured into the wars and conquests, and they are the sole beneficiaries. The return is entirely their's, and the consequence is precisely what we see around us: the top 1% of the wealthy end up owning more than the entire rest of the world population.

What have we seen in the last 15-years? A purposeless war that has benefited Halliburton and the oil industry, drastic tax cuts, while social programs are cut to the bare minimum, and all of the wealth has flowed to the top: Eighty people hold the same amount of wealth as the world’s 3.6 billion poorest people, according to an analysis just released from Oxfam. To add insult to injury, in Oct. 2008 the US government had to bail out the largest Wall Street banks...socializing risks, while maintaining private profits for the wealthy.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:57 am

korban dallas wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that most people vote out of narrow self interest, regardless of what party they vote for.

So you agree that someone who thinks benefits are a priority are more likely to vote Labour then?

Jolly good.
you really need to curb this habit of putting words in peoples mouth to support your premises its quite arrogant

Oh I think that's what you did, and then you didn't like it when I did the same to you.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 15, 2015 8:00 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I do think that if someone thinks that benefits are a priority, they're more likely to vote Labour than Tory. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

The Tories are generally known to be the party which is most likely to cut taxes and also cut spending. Labour is generally known to be the party which spends more public money. Do you disagree with that?

Not true. Tories don't like taxes, but they do spend. They just spend on different things.

Conservatives love their wars. Wars not only conquer resources, but they generate profit centers that provide business gains for the wealthy.

Conservatives don't like to pay for the wars, so they cut spending on social programs and promote austerity. They spin it that such programs are unnecessary and are the ventures of the profligate and lazy.

All public resources then are poured into the wars and conquests, and they are the sole beneficiaries. The return is entirely their's, and the consequence is precisely what we see around us: the top 1% of the wealthy end up owning more than the entire rest of the world population.

I'll just remind you that it was under a Labour Government that the UK got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.

by Guest Sun Nov 15, 2015 8:00 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
korban dallas wrote:
you really need to curb this habit of putting words in peoples mouth to support your premises its quite arrogant

Oh I think that's what you did, and then you didn't like it when I did the same to you.

no i didn`t your premise was labor voters vote for benifits it`s quite clearly above

by Original Quill Sun Nov 15, 2015 8:10 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Not true. Tories don't like taxes, but they do spend. They just spend on different things.

Conservatives love their wars. Wars not only conquer resources, but they generate profit centers that provide business gains for the wealthy.

Conservatives don't like to pay for the wars, so they cut spending on social programs and promote austerity. They spin it that such programs are unnecessary and are the ventures of the profligate and lazy.

All public resources then are poured into the wars and conquests, and they are the sole beneficiaries. The return is entirely their's, and the consequence is precisely what we see around us: the top 1% of the wealthy end up owning more than the entire rest of the world population.

I'll just remind you that it was under a Labour Government that the UK got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's in Britain...not exactly where the real decisions were made. Nevertheless, we still see the other half of the equations, don't we? The austerity, the tax-cuts and the flow of wealth to the wealthy are all following the pattern.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:09 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I'll just remind you that it was under a Labour Government that the UK got involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's in Britain...not exactly where the real decisions were made. Nevertheless, we still see the other half of the equations, don't we? The austerity, the tax-cuts and the flow of wealth to the wealthy are all following the pattern.

I think you'll find that the decision in the UK to get involved in Afghanistan and Iraq was very real.

This is a thread about anti-Brits, so you're off topic.

Tax cuts benefit everyone who actually pays tax, not just people who are rich.

by Guest Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:30 am

by Original Quill Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That's in Britain...not exactly where the real decisions were made. Nevertheless, we still see the other half of the equations, don't we? The austerity, the tax-cuts and the flow of wealth to the wealthy are all following the pattern.

I think you'll find that the decision in the UK to get involved in Afghanistan and Iraq was very real.

This is a thread about anti-Brits, so you're off topic.

Tax cuts benefit everyone who actually pays tax, not just people who are rich.

Nah...you've got to face the fact that on questions like these, Britain is the hand maiden of the US. That Blair is Labour is incidental; the US needed a consensus to start a war in Iraq, and Britain was more than willing to play the part. I saw Blair eagerly sitting in the first row of the Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001, hands in lap, eagerly awaiting his orders.

Britain is now a part of a corporate cartel run by Washington, and it is all one monolithic order. The issue of who was in Westminster at the time is inconsequential. There is only RW and LW.

I have just recounted, in my post above, the aims and strategy of the RW...inverse totalitarianism, as articulated by Sheldon Wolin. Wolin, Sheldon S., Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (2008). At the beginning, in 2001, the LW was simply trying to feed the hungry, cure the sick, educate the young...doing all those things you do in a humanistic world to help others. The LW didn't understand the coming ideology of Neo-Cons, the implications of American exceptionalism...or all of the events that were to bring us to Paris on November 24, 2015.

Now...the RW wants to put the pedal-to-the-metal and blow the crap outta the Middle East. The LW, still reeling, is thinking in parochial terms about how to minimize the vietnamization of the Middle East. We--all of us--have yet to fully appreciate our surroundings.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you'll find that the decision in the UK to get involved in Afghanistan and Iraq was very real.

This is a thread about anti-Brits, so you're off topic.

Tax cuts benefit everyone who actually pays tax, not just people who are rich.

Nah...you've got to face the fact that on questions like these, Britain is the hand maiden of the US. That Blair is Labour is incidental; the US needed a consensus to start a war in Iraq, and Britain was more than willing to play the part. I saw Blair eagerly sitting in the first row of the Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001, hands in lap, eagerly awaiting his orders.

Britain is now a part of a corporate cartel run by Washington, and it is all one monolithic order. The issue of who was in Westminster at the time is inconsequential. There is only RW and LW.

I have just recounted, in my post above, the aims and strategy of the RW...inverse totalitarianism, as articulated by Sheldon Wolin. Wolin, Sheldon S., Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (2008). At the beginning, in 2001, the LW was simply trying to feed the hungry, cure the sick, educate the young...doing all those things you do in a humanistic world to help others. The LW didn't understand the coming ideology of Neo-Cons, the implications of American exceptionalism...or all of the events that were to bring us to Paris on November 24, 2015.

Now...the RW wants to put the pedal-to-the-metal and blow the crap outta the Middle East. The LW, still reeling, is thinking in parochial terms about how to minimize the vietnamization of the Middle East. We--all of us--have yet to fully appreciate our surroundings.

Blair made his own decision, and he was leader of the Labour Government, so you see, it's not just "conservatives" who like war.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:01 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Nah...you've got to face the fact that on questions like these, Britain is the hand maiden of the US. That Blair is Labour is incidental; the US needed a consensus to start a war in Iraq, and Britain was more than willing to play the part. I saw Blair eagerly sitting in the first row of the Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001, hands in lap, eagerly awaiting his orders.

Britain is now a part of a corporate cartel run by Washington, and it is all one monolithic order. The issue of who was in Westminster at the time is inconsequential. There is only RW and LW.

I have just recounted, in my post above, the aims and strategy of the RW...inverse totalitarianism, as articulated by Sheldon Wolin. Wolin, Sheldon S., Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism (2008). At the beginning, in 2001, the LW was simply trying to feed the hungry, cure the sick, educate the young...doing all those things you do in a humanistic world to help others. The LW didn't understand the coming ideology of Neo-Cons, the implications of American exceptionalism...or all of the events that were to bring us to Paris on November 24, 2015.

Now...the RW wants to put the pedal-to-the-metal and blow the crap outta the Middle East. The LW, still reeling, is thinking in parochial terms about how to minimize the vietnamization of the Middle East. We--all of us--have yet to fully appreciate our surroundings.

Blair made his own decision, and he was leader of the Labour Government, so you see, it's not just "conservatives" who like war.

Blair was a puppet, eager and willing to take orders from the GWB administration.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Blair made his own decision, and he was leader of the Labour Government, so you see, it's not just "conservatives" who like war.

Blair was a puppet, eager and willing to take orders from the GWB administration.

He still took this country into a war in Iraq, no matter how much you spin it.

by Andy Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:03 pm

Cameron is just a puppet of the Bilderburg group.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:05 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Blair was a puppet, eager and willing to take orders from the GWB administration.

He still took this country into a war in Iraq, no matter how much you spin it.

But...he was an inconsequential cog in the machinery. It was inevitable.

by HoratioTarr Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:18 pm

korban dallas wrote:you know i feel it should be pointed out that when people say they hate the "British" they are generally talking about the English
Not the Scots ,Irish or welsh certainty the Scots are very well regarded around the world

Yeah, I hear Haggis Sushi is big in Japan

by HoratioTarr Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Blair was a puppet, eager and willing to take orders from the GWB administration.

He still took this country into a war in Iraq, no matter how much you spin it.

Exactly!

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He still took this country into a war in Iraq, no matter how much you spin it.

But...he was an inconsequential cog in the machinery. It was inevitable.

It wasn't inconsequential to the UK.

I'm a bit tired of your arrogance.

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:05 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He still took this country into a war in Iraq, no matter how much you spin it.

But...he was an inconsequential cog in the machinery. It was inevitable.

It wasn't inconsequential to the UK.

I'm a bit tired of your arrogance.

Yeah, and if you remember accurately, the Tory MPs still supported the invasion more strongly than did Labour. But can anybody actually picture any British PM defying the U.S., France-style?

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:16 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It wasn't inconsequential to the UK.

I'm a bit tired of your arrogance.

Yeah, and if you remember accurately, the Tory MPs still supported the invasion more strongly than did Labour. But can anybody actually picture any British PM defying the U.S., France-style?

Are you and Quill deliberately ignoring the fact that it was a LABOUR Government at the time, and a LABOUR leader who thought it would be a good idea to invade Iraq?

Never mind - I know the pair of you will just carry on spinning the way you always do.

by Ben Reilly Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:25 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It wasn't inconsequential to the UK.

I'm a bit tired of your arrogance.

Yeah, and if you remember accurately, the Tory MPs still supported the invasion more strongly than did Labour. But can anybody actually picture any British PM defying the U.S., France-style?

Are you and Quill deliberately ignoring the fact that it was a LABOUR Government at the time, and a LABOUR leader who thought it would be a good idea to invade Iraq?

Never mind - I know the pair of you will just carry on spinning the way you always do.

Not ignoring that spineless Blair was a Labour Party member -- actually it's you who is ignoring that there was more support among Tories for the illegal invasion than there was among Labour or any other party.

by Raggamuffin Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:36 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you and Quill deliberately ignoring the fact that it was a LABOUR Government at the time, and a LABOUR leader who thought it would be a good idea to invade Iraq?

Never mind - I know the pair of you will just carry on spinning the way you always do.

Not ignoring that spineless Blair was a Labour Party member -- actually it's you who is ignoring that there was more support among Tories for the illegal invasion than there was among Labour or any other party.

Not in absolute numbers there wasn't.

It's a bit rich for you to talk about Blair being spineless after the involvement of the US.

by Major Sun Nov 15, 2015 8:19 pm

How did we get to talking about scummy Bliar on this topic.

Did you know Cherry Bliar was in a circus catching dinner plates in her mouth?

How many of you REALLY HONESTLY watched the vid, it is brill, edifickayshunul, imo..

by veya_victaous Sun Nov 15, 2015 9:21 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

He still took this country into a war in Iraq, no matter how much you spin it.

But...he was an inconsequential cog in the machinery. It was inevitable.

It wasn't inconsequential to the UK.

I'm a bit tired of your arrogance.

Yeah, and if you remember accurately, the Tory MPs still supported the invasion more strongly than did Labour. But can anybody actually picture any British PM defying the U.S., France-style?

No, they would never. they are a vassal nation as much as the British on here a loath to admit it. Neutral

there real complaint should be the poor negotiation skills of Blair meaning they ended up with an 'unprofitable arrangement' for the deployment of their troops.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:33 am

Stormee wrote:How did we get to talking about scummy Bliar on this topic.

Did you know Cherry Bliar was in a circus catching dinner plates in her mouth?

How many of you REALLY HONESTLY watched the vid, it is brill, edifickayshunul, imo..

Finally, the relevant question. Here we are talking about larger geopolitical events, and Raggs wants to talk about local politics.

To pick up where I left off...Blair was just a cog in the machine. I shouted out loud when we in America saw that he was just a GWB lapdog. It was a great betrayal, but it showed that local politics didn't matter. Labour joins Neo-Cons and an illegal war ensues. Blair didn't cause the Iraq war, nor did he oppose it. He was just picked up and stuck in the hip pocket, taken along for the ride.

We would have loved to have the UK left join with the US left and oppose the immoral and illegal imperial tactic of the Neo-Cons. But alas, the little pussy was right down there in the front row of the Joint Session, panting his heart out.

Labour--the whole of British politics--got swallowed up by US supremacy. I wish as much as you that it wasn't so, Raggs, but it was.

by veya_victaous Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:44 am

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

by Ben Reilly Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:02 am

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 ...

by Sponsored content