Iraq war, your opinions?

[magekillr]

I would agree with Ginger, the BNP is fascist.

 

 

 

Ginger, I do have a question though. There's evidence that the party is growing, albeit it's still very small. What do you make of this, and why do you think this is?

[l0l0lpur32]

I would agree with Ginger, the BNP is fascist.

 

 

 

Ginger, I do have a question though. There's evidence that the party is growing, albeit it's still very small. What do you make of this, and why do you think this is?

 

What exactly is "fascist" about the BNP? Don't take this as me defending them in any way.

 

 

 

The reason the BNP is growing is mostly not because of actual support, but because of people protesting against the LibLabCon.

[magekillr]

I would agree with Ginger, the BNP is fascist.

 

 

 

Ginger, I do have a question though. There's evidence that the party is growing, albeit it's still very small. What do you make of this, and why do you think this is?

 

What exactly is "fascist" about the BNP? Don't take this as me defending them in any way.

 

 

 

The reason the BNP is growing is mostly not because of actual support, but because of people protesting against the LibLabCon.

 

 

 

Read their racial policies man...

 

 

 

To even be a member, you have to be "Indigenous Caucasian".

[Lenticular_J]

I've never visited Caucasia.

 

(Yes, I know that it's technically Europe and Russia-area. Oh, that still makes it true.)

 

 

 

But that isn't fascism, it's racism.

[l0l0lpur32]

I would agree with Ginger, the BNP is fascist.

 

 

 

Ginger, I do have a question though. There's evidence that the party is growing, albeit it's still very small. What do you make of this, and why do you think this is?

 

What exactly is "fascist" about the BNP? Don't take this as me defending them in any way.

 

 

 

The reason the BNP is growing is mostly not because of actual support, but because of people protesting against the LibLabCon.

 

 

 

Read their racial policies man...

 

 

 

To even be a member, you have to be "Indigenous Caucasian".

 

That's racism, not fascism. They say they have modernised, but if they truly had they would've removed that policy.

[magekillr]

*sigh*

 

 

 

Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity

 

 

 

The way they are promoting the particular race is fascism, not racism.

[Lenticular_J]

They aren't promoting a race, they're barring entry from other races.

[Ginger_Warrior]

They aren't promoting a race, they're barring entry from other races.

 

Oh, the Nazis weren't really fascist, they just barred entry of all other races except the Aryans (<-- censored, but you know which race I'm on about. ;) )

 

 

 

I would agree with Ginger, the BNP is fascist.

 

 

 

Ginger, I do have a question though. There's evidence that the party is growing, albeit it's still very small. What do you make of this, and why do you think this is?

 

Partially through disillusion with the three main parties who have become more professional politicians rather than groups who stand for stone-set ideologies, as should be the case. That's really what's killing politics in this country. There's no way New Labour should be to the right of the Liberals.

 

 

 

But then, they could join UKIP before the BNP.

 

 

 

I think it's more to do with the scaremongering in the papers leading politics towards the right-wing. When you have a constant paranoia of Muslims, Poles, homosexuals and anyone else the Mail or Telegraph want to scapegoat drilled into your head, without anyone else prepared to actually stick up for those minorities and provide a juxtaposition, groups who openly despise these minorities are going to become more popular.

 

 

 

To answer l0l0lpur32's point, unless you have someone explaining that Muslims make up only 3% of this country, and the vast majority are law-abiding, hard-working and productive members of society who, while having their own religious grievances, only follow spiritual Islam and do not generally force their opinions onto non-Muslims, then it's easy to get the idea Britain is being 'Islamified', even if this isn't anywhere near the case.

 

 

 

As far as the media are concerned, the tabloids have had to pay out over £1M to Robert Murat and the McCanns for libel surrounding the Madelaine McCann case; surveys show people think crime is rising when it's actually been halved in the past decade; the shock stories in the papers are also being blamed for a lack of consumer spending which may lead to the economic slowdown. There has to be a point where we have turn round to the media in our respective countries, and force them to stop twisting stories so grossly out of context, just to sell a good story.

[l0l0lpur32]

 

I would agree with Ginger, the BNP is fascist.

 

 

 

Ginger, I do have a question though. There's evidence that the party is growing, albeit it's still very small. What do you make of this, and why do you think this is?

 

Partially through disillusion with the three main parties who have become more professional politicians rather than groups who stand for stone-set ideologies, as should be the case. That's really what's killing politics in this country. There's no way New Labour should be to the right of the Liberals.

 

 

All three of the main parties are the same now. I expect that in 2010 people will vote for the tories to kick labour out thinking it'll make a difference, then after they have a couple of terms in government it'll be the same again with people voting labour to kick out the tories...

[Lenticular_J]

I have to admit I don't know enough about the BNP, but from what I do know, they are a fascist, racist group. Just trying to tell mage that racism is different from fascism. That Nazi relation wasn't exactly necessary.

[magekillr]

I have to admit I don't know enough about the BNP, but from what I do know, they are a fascist, racist group. Just trying to tell mage that racism is different from fascism. That Nazi relation wasn't exactly necessary.

 

 

 

You're right, it is different, and what they're promoting (partially through my example, among other things) is fascism. Double you tee eff?

 

 

 

And thanks for the explanation Ginger.

[jackattack]

So Jack: What is "winning in Iraq"?

 

 

 

I mean, they have a government, their government wants us out, their people want us out, 68% of Americans want us out...when do you swap from "winning" to "won"? Or are you just gonna believe more [cabbage] benchmarks that have "been met" until the end of time?

 

 

 

I don't understand what "winning" is when it comes to this situation. If there's a hockey game on, there's 3 periods, and whoever has the most points at the end of those 3 periods is the winner.

 

 

 

So, what is winning? It's never going to be perfect, ever, no country is, especially in that region.

 

 

 

You don't find this ironic...at all?:

 

 

 

CRAWFORD, TX (CNN) An embarrassing slip up for the White House press office Saturday, when an aide hit the wrong button and mistakenly sent to the news media a Reuters article saying Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki backs presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's troop withdrawal plan.

 

 

 

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel says, "It was a mistake. Clips list for staff was supposed to be the addressee."

 

 

 

The Obama campaign quickly took advantage of the mistake, forwarding an ABC report detailing the incident to its press list.

 

 

 

This is not the first time the White House has emailed in error. But its timing is particularly embarrassing as the Bush administration's recent agreement with al-Maliki on a "general time horizon" for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq is being cited by some as resembling Obama's proposal that U.S. forces should leave within 16 months.

 

 

 

 

 

Winning would be when we are able to hand over control of all 18 provinces and then withdraw without the country spiraling into chaos. Iraqis certainly do not want us out immediately. They know that the ISF isn't ready to stand completely on it's own. The pentagon thinks that the ISF will take control of all 18 by the end of the year. Admiral Mullin and General Patreus will probably recommend troop cuts before the end of the year.

 

 

 

Maliki's plan is nothing like Obama's. I bet if Obama's plan came up for a vote in the Iraqi parliament it wouldn't pass. Thats not to say we couldn't be out within two years or so. But to say that whatever happens we will continue to withdraw is just stupid. If we begin to withdraw and al qaeda resurges do you continue to withdraw? No that is very stupid. Obama was driven to his position by his far left radical ideology and if he doesn't change it when he comes back from Iraq that will just show that he puts party ideology or not wanting to look like a flip flopper above the country. If he does change his position I wouldn't call him a flip flopper because there is a good reason to change.

[Yomyth105]

I say that America along with other countries should continue operations in the Middle East and establish peace within the people.

 

 

 

Everybody is constantly pointing the finger at Bush for starting the operations in Iraq. first off, the president of the US cant declare war. only congress could. the president can only make it more popular if he favors it...

 

 

 

So true. At the time pretty much EVERYBODY was all for it. But politicians are politicians and they flip-flopped like none other. And then there are the "I hate Bush but I voted for him....twice" hypocrites. People seemed to have forgotten what a war was and didn't like that people were dieing, even if it is a relatively low number. War is war. People die. It sucks, but it happens.

 

 

 

Anyway I'm going to have to agree with you and the "you break it you buy it" philosophy. It's too late to turn back now. Giving up at this point will only result in Iran invading and killing more people; and then the cycle repeats. The only right thing to do is complete what we set out to do so all of those people didn't die in vain.

 

 

 

finally someone who agrees with me. i tried telling this to my friends when we discussed politics and they r like: War is wrong we should end it!

 

 

 

I also hate the fact the people r against the war and want peace within everyone. we have tried to negotiate treaties/peace/etc. but they just wont listen. we have to come there as a threat so they will understand very clearly that we mean business.

[dragoonson]

 

Winning would be when we are able to hand over control of all 18 provinces and then withdraw without the country spiraling into chaos. Iraqis certainly do not want us out immediately. They know that the ISF isn't ready to stand completely on it's own. The pentagon thinks that the ISF will take control of all 18 by the end of the year. Admiral Mullin and General Patreus will probably recommend troop cuts before the end of the year.

 

 

 

Maliki's plan is nothing like Obama's. I bet if Obama's plan came up for a vote in the Iraqi parliament it wouldn't pass. Thats not to say we couldn't be out within two years or so. But to say that whatever happens we will continue to withdraw is just stupid. If we begin to withdraw and al qaeda resurges do you continue to withdraw? No that is very stupid. Obama was driven to his position by his far left radical ideology and if he doesn't change it when he comes back from Iraq that will just show that he puts party ideology or not wanting to look like a flip flopper above the country. If he does change his position I wouldn't call him a flip flopper because there is a good reason to change.

 

 

 

How long did it take to get what you have?I doubt its possible to get 18 provinces without using bombing,which will lead us back to that cluster/surgical bombing argument...Why wouldn't the Iraqi's want you out immediately?When the Turkish Muslims took over Jerusalem the inhabitants wanted them out immediately,so conflicting was the rule.

 

 

 

Why wouldn't a plan for the Iraqi government to vote pass?Aren't you supposed to be building a democracy there?Sometimes winning isn't destroying the enemy,its knowing when to withdraw.

[jackattack]

^^ The U.S. already controls all 18 provinces. I was talking about giving control over to the ISF. And the Iraqis don't want us out immediately because the government would collapse and it would turn into civil war. The vote wouldn't pass because members of the Iraqi parliament wouldn't say that if the country falls apart that we should continue to withdraw.

[Kriegsmier]

Immediately after the british retreated violence went up. It was only after a while that it went down. That was because the insurgents went to other areas of Iraq.

 

 

 

That was the US Army, they are the occupational force of the US military and can't even do their jobs right. Marines constantly have to come back in and clean up what was once stable when the Marines had it. Many a times. :roll:

[magekillr]

I hate it when the opposition autonomically cites the fact that the surge has "worked".

 

 

 

The surge has reduced violence since it has been implemented, but this is not synonymous with the idea that the surge has "worked". Remember what we had to do in order to effectively reduce violence: we had to bribe Sunni leaders and their constituencies to fight with us.

 

 

 

Sure, they approached us because they were no longer able to tolerate an alliance with Al-Qaeda in Iraq, but we are still bribing them to fight with us against them. That's the reason for our success.

 

 

 

And furthermore, what it has done is disperse our enemies much more so than it has destroyed them, and that's why we're seeing a weakness in Al-Qaeda's fighting abilities as of late.

 

 

 

Then you've got the Shia militias who wield enormous political power and serve as a conduit for Iranian influence in the country. The Iraqi troops encountered them in the south near Basra, and Al-Maliki came down himself to oversee it, but the Iraqi military was a disorganized fighting group by comparison.

 

 

 

One of the biggest problems in Iraq that is fostering an insurgency is the economy; if you can't obtain or maintain a job, killing Americans earns you money. We used Iraq's own problem to our advantage when we bribed the Sunni fighters to fight with us, because there's an economic void that has yet to be filled, and it's fostering violence. And when Al-Qaeda no longer becomes a significant power, and we have no need to contract the Sunni tribes to fight with us anymore... then what?

 

 

 

The surge has reduced violence, but this is not synonymous with working. You might as well say that a cough suppressant can cure the flu.

[jackattack]

You are really in the minority of saying the surge hasn't worked. I think it's probably just you Nancy Pelosi, code pink, and Jack "first to call for retreat, the troops are murderer's, now gimmie a bribe" Murtha.

 

 

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nation ... hl1068.cfm

[magekillr]

What the hell does "work" even mean? Reduce violence? Yes. Get us closer to withdrawing? No.

[jackattack]

What was the mission? To reduce violence. And we are closer to withdrawing. How can you say that we aren't? You just don't want Barack F. Kennedy jr. to be wrong about anything.

[magekillr]

Hmm...wasn't the mission to find WMD? No?

 

 

 

What was it then? Oh, right, to take Saddam out of power.

 

 

 

What? That wasn't the mission either? Was it to establish a government that can operate on its own and when they tell us to leave we will?

 

 

 

Oh. No? Still not right? Damn, here I was thinking those were our missions that have changed once each one has been completed...now I know our mission was to reduce violence in the Middle East, and not give a [bleep] about Zimbabwe or Darfur. Thanks.

 

 

 

edit: ... the surge was a six month plan that took 18 months, and we still haven't seen the political reconciliation that was promised as part of it. Sure, violence is down appreciably, but even Maliki says that is more of a result of other factors, not our troop surge.

[jackattack]

That all has no bearing on the surge. Even BFK jr. who said it would fail before it eve started admits it has worked.

 

 

 

edit: We don't care about Africa? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4751751.stm

 

Thats in addition to the 65 billion in aid we've already approved.

[Lenticular_J]

It was for WMDs, actually. We went over that several pages ago.

[dragoonson]

That all has no bearing on the surge. Even BFK jr. who said it would fail before it eve started admits it has worked.

 

 

 

Burger Frikking King?

[jackattack]

Barack F. Kennedy jr. as he is in liberals eyes. Or is is Barack Jesus Christ Obama? I'm just waiting for someone to nail him with a "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."