 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 288 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614103 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
British Population to be Expelled for Bush Visit. The population of Britain is to be evacuated to an undisclosed destination (possibly the Azores) at the request of the Bush administration. A Whitehouse spokesman explained "the British people refuse to like our President and by definition that makes them terrorist suspects. They represent a clear and pretzel danger to the United States leader and must be neutralised. Sending them to an undisclosed island for 3 days is a sensible response and clearly in the interests of Freedom and Democracy." Bush aides deny they are visiting Britain with a shoot to kill policy "frankly with our friendly fire record, shoot to wound would be just fine." What do you reckon about Bush being the first US president to be granted a state visit during the 50 years the Queen has been on the thrown? Why him? Is anyone going on any demos when he's here? Has the US media even covered the fact that this state visit isn't very popular among most in the UK? Thoughts about it please... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You seen about the family of that UK soldier who died who are going to meet him and ask him if shock and awe was strictly neccessary? I'd be interested to see the outcome of that... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I didn't see that story about that particular family, although I did read one where the invite to meet Bush was suddenly withdrawn after the dead soldier's father was criticle about the war on his local news. Cowards. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ah that may be the same one... I did suspect they might cancel it if they got wind of their views. The guy's family always were opposed to the war (the dead soldier wasn't) and haven't exactly been quiet about it. Personally, if I were in their shoes I would not mention it until you actually asked him on camera- that way it'd be too late for them to "arrive too late" or have to "reschedule" the meeting... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
he'll get a nice warm welcome from us english :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"March to Trafalgar Square where a statue of George Bush will be pulled down." what a great idea! can't wait to see it on the News! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
<------- cock I see the words "terrorist threat" are being used to squish legitimate protest again... *cough*armsfair*cough* |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
On a similar note... "US activist, Brent Bursey is going to court this week after being charged for holding a sign reading "No More War For Oil" at an airport in South Carolina last October. Bush was supposed to be arriving later that day and people had gathered to show him what they thought of the war on Iraq. Bursey was charged with trespassing, even though he was on public property, 'cos he hadn't been standing in the marked "free-speech zone." Protesters were only supposed to be half a mile away where nobody, least of all Bush, could see or hear them. Bursey told police he had been under the impression that the whole of America was a "free speech zone" and local authorities dropped the charges. Six months later federal authorities renewed the case using a rarely enforced statute allowing the Secret Service to restrict access to areas near the president. If convicted, this charge carries a penalty of up to a $5000 fine and six months in jail. Bursey is being denied a jury trial." |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I don't mind people protesting but it must be tough going for Bush with all these nuts who do appear to be quite happy to want to inflict violence on him. He has to be careful though he has to be seen to allow people to protest freely. I think he has to be careful here. But I equally feel that if a certain individuals aren't prepared to sware allegiance to the flag of a given country i.e. Britain or America, then I'm not entirely happy for that invidual to remain in that country. I think he has certainly overdone with the security arrangements and that is only fanning existing flames. However as said before there are a lot of nuts out there who do have ill intentions so its really a balance that has to be struck. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
They represent a clear and pretzel danger to the United States leader and must be neutralised. pretzel.....? uhm anyway fuck bush.. yeh.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think he was absolutely 100% right to go into Iraq. But subsequently both Bush and Blair have dealt with the Iraq situation really badly, very amateurish. Blair is a newbie and prefers to reject our past abilities at being able to manage empire and so hasn't used any of the experience gained by running empire in the dealings with Iraq. It was a gross mistake for instance to dispel the 100,000 odd Iraq army. That leaves a whole bunch of pro Saddam nuts running around without a cause or purpose and no income and so naturally they're going to create difficulty. The wiser thing would have been to keep them in service and use them as a payed force (under control) to help in the rebuilding of Iraq. The other mistake was not to reintroduce the former King of Iraq. This would have been the right approach. Not only that the former King was pro West and he wouldn't have been a good figurehead but we could have worked with him behind the scenes. Instead you have a situation where the West (Britain and America) have been fronting up on everything and has just created more resentment and ill feeling amongst the more nutty segments of Iraq society. Personally I don't understand why the ungrateful sods are so anti-American. Granted there have been a lot of mistakes with civilian killings etc however it has always been a tense situation for American troops not knowing ultimately who is friend or foe. But still I know why my sentiments lie and that piece of shit Saddam is out and although his influence is still present, its certainly better than before. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I certainly wouldn't swear allegence to any flag, regardless of what country I happen to reside in. It's the whipping up of nationalistic fervour that's the root of lots of the problems that are now surfacing. I think it's your duty to question the State and not just be it's obsequious servant. My allegence is primarily to myself, family, friends, community and fellow human beings in general. The State comes next ? obviously some co-operation is required. And I don't think swearing allegence would stop a nut from attempting anything. I'm sure Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinkley all swore allegence. Probably John Wilkes Booth too? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marine, and he killed a President. Anyways, to hell with Bush. Never liked him to begin with. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yes I would agree broadly with what you say. However it is a simple requirement for people when they come into a new country (to become a citizen of that country). Certainly thats how it works in Britain and America. However thats your choice. I happen to feel proud of my country and don't have a problem with it. But to be honest why the fuck should you let someone into your country if at the very least they're not prepared to swear allegiance to the flag or whatever. If you ask me its a bit of a cheek. I mean I'm very happy for people to protest and shit but if they can't support the country on basic level then sod em. Thats my view anyways. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, an immgrant should respect the country and culture that they live in -- whether it be an African in London or an Englishman abroad. But that is all that's needed; respect. Respect for those you live with and respect, as a citizen, from the State. Sadly, as I said before, patriotism or nationalism, whever you want to call it, propagated by state insitutions tends to create a climate of hostility toward the whole immigration issue. I'm speaking of the UK here. Other countries? I don't know. Classrooms full of foriegners with their hands in the air all reciting some well rehearsed lines about God and country n' shit is meaningless really. Deeds not words is what is needed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Mmm maybe maybe. You've got to bear in mind its a little to ask compared to what they get out of this country. Lets face it why should a country have to take the world and its sick in? It gets to a point where it just gets ridicouless, you have the draw the line somewhere. The fact is all countries have their immigration issues. For instance the French love to let everyone through the Channel tunnel and pass them onto the English and make really pathetic excuses as to why they get through. On immigration Britain has a pretty light touch and the fact that people rightly or wrongly get a little pissed off when immigrants and recent settlers start to criticise foreign policy aggressively and don't appear to show much allegiance to this country isn't too suprising. The fact is there is a big swell of anti-British/anti-foreign policy sentiment from certain segments of recent immigrant population and well to be honest its a bit cheeky seeing as the benefits they've gained from being in this country in the first place. As said before its almost the take everything and give nothing back attitude and it irritates people. I think if you're in a country there has to be a bit of give and take and not just all selfish take, wouldn't you agree? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Lee Harvey Oswald was a Patsy... there's no way he killed the president if you are opposed to Bush's actions... please please please go to the massive protest... and bring absolutely everyone you know... if he ever came anywhere close to where i was... i'd definitely go out of my way to attend a demonstration |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'd LOVE to be at the dinner table when Bush and Phillip have a conversation =oD !!!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Coupla points. "Lets face it why should a country have to take the world and its sick in?" The, or more specifically, our economy demands it. 167,000 imigrants on UK work permits in 2002. That's UK industry that have applied for those permits. None of us "indiginous" folk wants the jobs and the vacancies can't be filled. These are jobs in the food and hospitality and service sectors. Hardly unimportant roles too. It's the ol' market forces story, I'm affraid. When the economy is in all but recession it relies on cheap labour to function. When the US saw umprecedented growth in the 90's under Clinton, it did so fueld by an extra 10 million immigrants. "there is a big swell of anti-British/anti-foreign policy sentiment from certain segments of recent immigrant population and well to be honest its a bit cheeky seeing as the benefits they've gained from being in this country in the first place." The current swathe of immgrants that appear now to be the focus of concern, come from a generation that understands more the nature of their imperialist past and how our nations have subjegated theirs in pursuit of resources to aid our economic and cultural expansion. This generation are not so forgiving as past ones in this respect. I'm pretty sure most immgrants would love not to have to seek a life abroad. Sadly, I suggest, that most of the troubles they're fleeing may have our grubby little fingerprints all over it. Whether it be civil war ousting a tin pot dictator covertly backed by us or famine (during the Ethopian famine, Ethiopia was a NET EXPORTER of food!) or drought/flood; more frequent due to global climate change. I'm sure they'd rather not travel continents to live with a little dignity. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Weak points. I'm afraid the argument you use in favour of cheap labour is the very same argument that it used against Corporations. So you've fallen into a trap there. The whole work thing is very debatable and these jobs issues as you put it can be easily solved anyway. Fact is the economy isn't going to fall apart without these immigrants, so I think its basically a gross fallacy to think otherwise. It just simply suits your agenda to believe that. The rest of your points are just anti-British/colonial rubbish and just plain emotional. I think you're seriously kidding yourself if you believe Britain is at the root of the worlds problems, it is just not the case. I think its a this stage of the debate when I just cannot take you or others with similar opinions seriously. The majority of these countries simply create there own problems and it has not one iota to do with Britain. Anyway I really don't wish to waste my time anymore because thats really all it becomes. You have your views and I have mine and I think thats where its best left. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Peloton, By constantly blaiming Britain, which is seriously predictable, I think you're failing to actually appreciate the wider picture. The fact is these former colonies have been out of the 'control' for decades and decades. They were left in exceptional good states, handed over often amicable, and they've just been ruined again, again and again. That is just not our doing. You will believe what you want and thats it really. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Peloton .. where did you get those articles? we haven't heard a thing about this state visit.. and the special roll-backs of the judicial system are happening all over the place.. a lot of people are going out of their way to keep bush et al protected.. and no one hears a word about it |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
peleton, then get the fuck out of your country and go someplace else. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Must agree with promo. There is a go and plunder attitude with immigration, but there is a history, obviously, of immigrants making a country better. After all, all Americans are immigrants. Whether it was a positive attitude (I doubt the working class slums of New York were sun festivles), or survival of the fittest in firtile ground that made the US grow so rapidly, I don't know. The reasons these old colonies fail miserably is due to coruption and lack of structure. An immigrant in the US has as much or better of a chance to 'make' it as anyone else, due to laws, structure, hand holding etc...That's why they come and there's nothing you can do about it. Unless you want to go to Syria next. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
shut up you fucking idiot |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
bogala, These reason why these ex colonies fail has nothing to do with structure etc. Britain has always left ex colonies in good states and then in 5 to 10 years then ruined due to some dictator pilaging the country or civil/tribal war. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
bush wanted all these special security measures to be put in place.. like reenforcing the walls of rooms he'd be spending time in.. and to make the area air-raid proof.. and other things to prevent bombings.. the queen turned his requests down because she said if they were bombed.. those extra security measures put in place wouldn't do a goddamn thing. heh |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
bush wanted all these special security measures to be put in place.. like reenforcing the walls of rooms he'd be spending time in.. and to make the area air-raid proof.. and other things to prevent bombings.. the queen turned his requests down because she said if they were bombed.. those extra security measures put in place wouldn't do a goddamn thing. heh |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
promo, I agree. If things were better at home they'd stay. How can you fix that? You can't, really. Whether things were good when the brits left is irrelevent.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
theo, who are you talking to? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what? the shut the fuck up? that was for elusive.. this isnt a discussion for myopic little kidz! \8~p |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
omg THREAD HAX |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
..exactly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"weak points"? Wha.. ? "I'm afraid the argument you use in favour of cheap labour is the very same argument that it used against Corporations. So you've fallen into a trap there." What trap are you talking about? And in what context is used against corporations? Sorry, you've lost me there. "The whole work thing is very debatable and these jobs issues as you put it can be easily solved anyway... " How can it be "easily solved"? You should be working in Downing Street's policy forum if you know. "Fact is the economy isn't going to fall apart without these immigrants, so I think its basically a gross fallacy to think otherwise. It just simply suits your agenda to believe that." Hold it. You didn't read my post correctly. I didn't say the economy would fall apart without immigration I stated that when the economy is growth it is sustained with the help of immigration. Immigration that is requested, by the use of work permits, by industry. David Blunkett made an announcement only last week... "The rest of your points are just anti-British/colonial rubbish and just plain emotional." hehe! OK. You clearly have a rose-tinted view of our colonial past. Not shared, I might add, by the current generation of immigrants. Speak to a few of them, it might suprise you. I work with many of them (all agency staff employed at a lower rate of pay) and they are pretty scathing of how their countries have been used for the gain of the West. Your view tends to radiate from the 'noble savages in need of civilising at the hands of a benevolent empire' school. That's a pretty racist view to take. And you have a flimsy grasp on geo-politics which, with all the will in the world, can't be argued with in any substantial terms on message boards like this one. As you said, you have your views and I have mine. And the world continues to turn. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
tl; dr. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
This 'state' visit according to the news, is costing the British tax payers £5million!! :-O ! ! ! ! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Peloton, Interesting points. However in reference to the "current generation of immigrants" that you speak to on a regular basis, I think their excuses are (i.e anti-Britain/anti-colonial history) old hat. Britain created peace and prosperity amongst its colonies that cannot be denied. And the simple fact was when we left, it was the indigenous peoples who messed things up with their tribal warfare, all round greed, corruption etc etc. Why not ask them about this part of their given history next time you speak to them? Set against the Dutch, Portugese or French, we were leagues ahead as colonial rulers in terms of rule of law and general conduct. This simply always meant that everybody is equal under the law. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
britain represents all that is good and sacred, everyone knows that just like the jews and god, and the bible |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
tl; dr. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
???????? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I tried to post a long blurb, but it got fucked up and lost. Due to laziness, i say this: Look at a map of Africa. See the straight lines? Its because before Britain freed their colonies, they wanted to make sure they had some form of superiority over the others. Because of the false boundaries, Britain ensured that an African state would never become significantly powerful. Same with the Arab nations through the post WWI Mandates. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Too Long; Didn't Read. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
GIR, Er right. Keep making it up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
