|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 8, 2023 21:27:21 GMT
I used to like the golliwogs on the jam labels but you try and purchase a golliwog these days FFS That's because you are too stupid to see how offensive they could be. Times move on. Stop living in the past. If you want to live in the 1950s invent a fucking time machine. Or read the Daily Mail. Oh you already do. Anyone who thinks this tiny badge is racist or offensive needs to grow up get a life and stop looking for offence. Thin skinned virtue signalling woke lefties are the worst thing about the 21st century. So far.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2023 21:31:20 GMT
That's because you are too stupid to see how offensive they could be. Times move on. Stop living in the past. If you want to live in the 1950s invent a fucking time machine. Or read the Daily Mail. Oh you already do. Anyone who thinks this tiny badge is racist or offensive needs to grow up get a life and stop looking for offence. Thin skinned virtue signalling woke lefties are the worst thing about the 21st century. So far. Worse even than the Tories? I think not. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 8, 2023 21:35:45 GMT
*WARNING*WARNING*WARNING*WARNING* WARNING*
This skinned woke lefties are advised to be seated and have smelling salts to hand before watching the clip below.
If you're a thin skinned lefty, then an innocuous 1950's Gollie badge is far more offensive than a Tarantino classic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 8, 2023 22:01:50 GMT
By the way, the film that so offends outraged lefties is about to start on C4.  |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 8, 2023 22:17:32 GMT
By the way, the film that so offends outraged lefties is about to start on C4. Pulp Fiction? How does that offend lefties? I'm watching Mary Queen of Scots myself. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 8, 2023 23:21:20 GMT
By the way, the film that so offends outraged lefties is about to start on C4. Pulp Fiction? How does that offend lefties? I'm watching Mary Queen of Scots myself. I'm afraid it's not diverse enough for me. Only 5 or 6 black people in a 2018 version. Positively racist. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 8, 2023 23:36:47 GMT
Pulp Fiction? How does that offend lefties? I'm watching Mary Queen of Scots myself. I'm afraid it's not diverse enough for me. Only 5 or 6 black people in a 2018 version. Positively racist. The husband of Mary is a sodomite, what more do you want to satiate your desire for it to be woke enough Red. Would you have them make her a muslim? |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 8, 2023 23:37:53 GMT
You have not and cannot provide evidence that the Iraq war was illegal.The Tories did build slightly more houses post Meltdown as the country climbed out of the economic crisis. BUT they did not have to rebuild the NHS or the educational system both of which are extremely important to the lower paid and to the working people in general. You have made one major mistake over Iraq and ignored the circumstances NL had to face during their period in office. So I am clearly not disposed to take notice of the part of your post I've highlighted, without any evidence. I have provided it twice so far. You ignored it both times and pretended I havent presented any. That is both fundamentally stupid and fundamentally dishonest. The answer is simple, post your evidence on its own without hiding it in amongst a load of your beliefs. That way it cannot be ignored or overlooked. I am certain that I have proved you wrong before, and I have no objection to proving you wrong again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2023 8:17:27 GMT
I have provided it twice so far. You ignored it both times and pretended I havent presented any. That is both fundamentally stupid and fundamentally dishonest. The answer is simple, post your evidence on its own without hiding it in amongst a load of your beliefs. That way it cannot be ignored or overlooked. I am certain that I have proved you wrong before, and I have no objection to proving you wrong again. Why you expect me to do the work a third time because you couldn't be bothered to read it on previous occasions is beyond me. I do not post at your beck and call. If you couldn't be bothered to read it before then that's your problem, not mine. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 9, 2023 13:03:50 GMT
The answer is simple, post your evidence on its own without hiding it in amongst a load of your beliefs. That way it cannot be ignored or overlooked. I am certain that I have proved you wrong before, and I have no objection to proving you wrong again. Why you expect me to do the work a third time because you couldn't be bothered to read it on previous occasions is beyond me. I do not post at your beck and call. If you couldn't be bothered to read it before then that's your problem, not mine. I'm certain that I did read your 'evidence' and rebutted it. I'm prepared to research my evidence a third time if necessary. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2023 15:44:02 GMT
Why you expect me to do the work a third time because you couldn't be bothered to read it on previous occasions is beyond me. I do not post at your beck and call. If you couldn't be bothered to read it before then that's your problem, not mine. I'm certain that I did read your 'evidence' and rebutted it. I'm prepared to research my evidence a third time if necessary. You never responded to the post in either case. On the second occasion I copy and pasted the first post along with resupplying the link because you never responded the first time. You ignored it the second time too. Which is odd because I am forever getting notifications from you responding to just about everything else I post. I cannot be arsed to keep supplying stuff which you'll then ignore. You'd probably rubbish it as being a link to wikipedia, but the article contains many direct quotes and facts. Anyway, here is a copy of the previous posts with link included. Perhaps you will respond to it this time....? There was no vote on the war because of the certainty of it being vetoed. They had to fall back on a resolution insisting that Iraq comply with weapons inspectors. All the evidence suggests that they did. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said that they did. The USA said they did not but offered no convincing evidence and were proved wrong after the fact when no weapons were found. UN Secretary General Kofi Anan said after the invasion that it was illegal at the time that it happened. Colin Powell has subsequently expressed regret that he was wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq had thereby complied with UN resolutions in full. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_WarMost experts regard the invasion as being of dubious legality and it was certainly unprovoked and launched on what proved to be a wholly false pretext. And Blair and his government were complicit in dodgy dossiers of such obvious fabrication that it was blatantly obvious at the time to anyone with an ounce of common sense that we were being lied to. It was a shameful episode in our history when Blair himself strode the world stage in the role of Bush's toady, to a breathtakingly cringeworthy and nationally shaming extent. So much so that no less a person than Nelson Mandela mockingly referred to him as the US foreign secretary rather than the British Prime Minister. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 9, 2023 17:27:22 GMT
I'm certain that I did read your 'evidence' and rebutted it. I'm prepared to research my evidence a third time if necessary. You never responded to the post in either case. On the second occasion I copy and pasted the first post along with resupplying the link because you never responded the first time. You ignored it the second time too. Which is odd because I am forever getting notifications from you responding to just about everything else I post. I cannot be arsed to keep supplying stuff which you'll then ignore. You'd probably rubbish it as being a link to wikipedia, but the article contains many direct quotes and facts. Anyway, here is a copy of the previous posts with link included. Perhaps you will respond to it this time....? There was no vote on the war because of the certainty of it being vetoed. They had to fall back on a resolution insisting that Iraq comply with weapons inspectors. All the evidence suggests that they did. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said that they did. The USA said they did not but offered no convincing evidence and were proved wrong after the fact when no weapons were found. UN Secretary General Kofi Anan said after the invasion that it was illegal at the time that it happened. Colin Powell has subsequently expressed regret that he was wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq had thereby complied with UN resolutions in full. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_WarMost experts regard the invasion as being of dubious legality and it was certainly unprovoked and launched on what proved to be a wholly false pretext. And Blair and his government were complicit in dodgy dossiers of such obvious fabrication that it was blatantly obvious at the time to anyone with an ounce of common sense that we were being lied to. It was a shameful episode in our history when Blair himself strode the world stage in the role of Bush's toady, to a breathtakingly cringeworthy and nationally shaming extent. So much so that no less a person than Nelson Mandela mockingly referred to him as the US foreign secretary rather than the British Prime Minister. Kofi Annan, a decent chap but not forgetting the basic desire of the UN is to avoid conflict and that Annan did not have any legal education, his comments carry no legal weight and was just his opinion. The last UN res. I posted to you stated that America and the UK were in Iraq legally according to international law. I'll find it a re-post it if you want. I did respond, in fact IIRC the last point I made was that because Saddam had refused to comply with the many UN resolutions over a 12 year period that required him to comply with the Ceasefire Agreement of 1991, a state of war sill existed. (A ceasefire is, " a break in hostilities while a way forward is found".) The way forward was not adhered to by Iraq so the original conflict still remained. There was no requirement for a second vote, the idea of a second vote was put forward by Toney Blair in order to defend the action from those who disagreed with the invasion. Blair said a second vote was not a necessity, but was preferable. The idea was dropped because of the threat of a veto. They returned to the original UN position of the issuing of Iraq, after 12 years of refusal to comply with the Ceasefire agreement a, " Final opportunity to fully comply" with the UN inspectors and with UN Res. 1441. Saddam / Iraq failed to comply. There were no lies in the so called Dodgy Dossier. Named as dodgy by some dodgy blogger. The truth was obvious to anyone who took the time to look into the matter. Its not too late for you to look into it. Many people do believe the the invasion was illegal, it is just their opinions as proof is not available. So they are wrong There were many reasons why it was a provoked Invasion. 1. Saddam's refusal to comply with the ceasefire agreement. 2. After the ceasefire the UK, the US and France (France later dropped out) had to police the 'No Fly' zones in order to stop Iraq bombing the Kurds in the north and the Kuwaitis in the south. 3. The UN inspectors had to request permission to inspect areas and buildings. That allowed Saddam to play cat and mouse games (as named by Hans Blix) with the inspectors. Meaning the inspectors could not verify either the presence or absence of WMD in Iraq. But had every reason to believe they were there which was Saddam's reason for his cat and mouse games. 4.The number of Missiles claimed as destroyed by Iraq in accordance with the ceasefire agreement, did not meet with the receipts for WMD parts and Chemicals that Hans Blix had obtained. 5. Blair never claimed in his own right that Iraq had WMD available. Blair relied upon the Intelligence information for that. The Intelligence that kept Blair informed posted a comment in the press around 2004 where they admitted they got it wrong over WMD in Iraq. Saddam was still intent on building an attacking military as found out after the invasion. The UN required he built a defensive military, that's how dangerous he was perceived to be. The invasion revealed that he did need to be stopped at that stage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2023 17:54:01 GMT
You never responded to the post in either case. On the second occasion I copy and pasted the first post along with resupplying the link because you never responded the first time. You ignored it the second time too. Which is odd because I am forever getting notifications from you responding to just about everything else I post. I cannot be arsed to keep supplying stuff which you'll then ignore. You'd probably rubbish it as being a link to wikipedia, but the article contains many direct quotes and facts. Anyway, here is a copy of the previous posts with link included. Perhaps you will respond to it this time....? There was no vote on the war because of the certainty of it being vetoed. They had to fall back on a resolution insisting that Iraq comply with weapons inspectors. All the evidence suggests that they did. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said that they did. The USA said they did not but offered no convincing evidence and were proved wrong after the fact when no weapons were found. UN Secretary General Kofi Anan said after the invasion that it was illegal at the time that it happened. Colin Powell has subsequently expressed regret that he was wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq had thereby complied with UN resolutions in full. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_and_the_Iraq_WarMost experts regard the invasion as being of dubious legality and it was certainly unprovoked and launched on what proved to be a wholly false pretext. And Blair and his government were complicit in dodgy dossiers of such obvious fabrication that it was blatantly obvious at the time to anyone with an ounce of common sense that we were being lied to. It was a shameful episode in our history when Blair himself strode the world stage in the role of Bush's toady, to a breathtakingly cringeworthy and nationally shaming extent. So much so that no less a person than Nelson Mandela mockingly referred to him as the US foreign secretary rather than the British Prime Minister. Kofi Annan, a decent chap but not forgetting the basic desire of the UN is to avoid conflict and that Annan did not have any legal education, his comments carry no legal weight and was just his opinion. The last UN res. I posted to you stated that America and the UK were in Iraq legally according to international law. I'll find it a re-post it if you want. I did respond, in fact IIRC the last point I made was that because Saddam had refused to comply with the many UN resolutions over a 12 year period that required him to comply with the Ceasefire Agreement of 1991, a state of war sill existed. (A ceasefire is, " a break in hostilities while a way forward is found".) The way forward was not adhered to by Iraq so the original conflict still remained. There was no requirement for a second vote, the idea of a second vote was put forward by Toney Blair in order to defend the action from those who disagreed with the invasion. Blair said a second vote was not a necessity, but was preferable. The idea was dropped because of the threat of a veto. They returned to the original UN position of the issuing of Iraq, after 12 years of refusal to comply with the Ceasefire agreement a, " Final opportunity to fully comply" with the UN inspectors and with UN Res. 1441. Saddam / Iraq failed to comply. There were no lies in the so called Dodgy Dossier. Named as dodgy by some dodgy blogger. The truth was obvious to anyone who took the time to look into the matter. Its not too late for you to look into it. Many people do believe the the invasion was illegal, it is just their opinions as proof is not available. So they are wrong There were many reasons why it was a provoked Invasion. 1. Saddam's refusal to comply with the ceasefire agreement. 2. After the ceasefire the UK, the US and France (France later dropped out) had to police the 'No Fly' zones in order to stop Iraq bombing the Kurds in the north and the Kuwaitis in the south. 3. The UN inspectors had to request permission to inspect areas and buildings. That allowed Saddam to play cat and mouse games (as named by Hans Blix) with the inspectors. Meaning the inspectors could not verify either the presence or absence of WMD in Iraq. But had every reason to believe they were there which was Saddam's reason for his cat and mouse games. 4.The number of Missiles claimed as destroyed by Iraq in accordance with the ceasefire agreement, did not meet with the receipts for WMD parts and Chemicals that Hans Blix had obtained. 5. Blair never claimed in his own right that Iraq had WMD available. Blair relied upon the Intelligence information for that. The Intelligence that kept Blair informed posted a comment in the press around 2004 where they admitted they got it wrong over WMD in Iraq. Saddam was still intent on building an attacking military as found out after the invasion. The UN required he built a defensive military, that's how dangerous he was perceived to be. The invasion revealed that he did need to be stopped at that stage. I lack the mental energy to wish to respond to that in verbose detail. That a state of war allegedly still existed so that an invasion was just a continuation of it is pretty risible as a legal justification. As for the supposed WMD, Iraq already had gotten rid of them as evidenced by the fact that it wasn't found to be in possession of any. So whatever cat and mouse games Saddam might have been accused of playing, he had clearly complied with the demand not to manufacture WMD. So on what basis was our invasion necessary? And how did it improve anything? Saddam was a bastard but no threat to us. The religious nutjobs who are were his enemies too and his brutal regime effectively kept them down. Our invasion just created a vacuum filled with anarchy, with every terrorist and his grandad going nuts, and eventually leading to the appearance of Islamic State. We also by our invasion caused a flood of refugees, many of whom came flocking to our own shores. We simply destabilised the area further and wholly unnecessarily. The real reasons for the war was Bush junior seeking closure for his daddy, and Blair's desire to be America's poodle in all things. His toadying to Bush was utterly cringeworthy to behold and the opposite of true statesmanship. I cannot recall a time before or since when any other politician made me feel quite so ashamed of him on behalf of my country. Yes, Boris was a narcissistic lying twat who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the arse. But he didn't shame us so on the world stage for all to see as Blair did. Yes the latter paragraph is opinion which you will dispute the facts of. And much of your response will form an opposing opinion no doubt. But my opinion is one supported by the facts and in any debating forum the exchange of opinions is valid. It is not inherently the case that your own opinions are concrete facts whilst opposing views are not. In that assumption lies the arrogant belief that you are obviously right in all things and anyone stupid enough to disagree with you is a fool for not seeing it your way. I don't and never will buy that, nor will most of us here. Thought I'd say that in advance in anticipation of your expected criticism. I am becoming overly familiar with you usual modus operandi. |
|
