paris
Comments
-
The political landscape in France seems to be changing.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/front-national-wins-opening-round-in-frances-regional-elections
Lets see if FN can carry this result through into the 2nd and 3rd rounds? they ve never managed to before.
i think events in US and possibly europes drift to the far right, may mean US/Euro boots in syria ?0 -
The political landscape in France seems to be changing.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/06/front-national-wins-opening-round-in-frances-regional-elections
Lets see if FN can carry this result through into the 2nd and 3rd rounds? they ve never managed to before.
i think events in US and possibly europes drift to the far right, may mean US/Euro boots in syria ?
Not in the immediate future but it will come to pass,0 -
I read a very interesting article on the BBC website over the weekend about the deposing/execution of Gaddafi. It confirmed as we have all thought, that whilst he was an evil bar steward he at least brought stability to his country. Not only that, but there was the opportunity for his citizens to earn good money and improve their lot. Not only did the Libyan's benefit but other countries in the sub Saharan region and the Gulf of Guinea. They reported on a district of Accra, Ghana which became very affluent due to workers returning from Libya and building houses and contributing the local economy. Now nothing. The Ghanians now state that their only option to earn money is to get to Europe or if they can afford it Brazil.
Well done USA/UK/France et al.
http://www.amren.com/news/2012/05/life-in-rhodesia-was-better-than-zimbabwe/
Life in Rhodesia was better under a white supremacist regime than in Zimbabwe. On that basis, should the world have done all it could to keep Ian Smith in charge?
Again. Uncomfortable as it is for the liberals of the world. Colonialism was actually a damned site better than the current situations of many countries in Africa/South America/Asia.
I used to work with a Rhodesian ex-pat. He told me that he employed a black husband and wife to look after his home. He provided them with a house and he educated their kids. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement and one that was quite common. Then Mugabe came to power and the country descended into tribalism and slaughter.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
I read a very interesting article on the BBC website over the weekend about the deposing/execution of Gaddafi. It confirmed as we have all thought, that whilst he was an evil bar steward he at least brought stability to his country. Not only that, but there was the opportunity for his citizens to earn good money and improve their lot. Not only did the Libyan's benefit but other countries in the sub Saharan region and the Gulf of Guinea. They reported on a district of Accra, Ghana which became very affluent due to workers returning from Libya and building houses and contributing the local economy. Now nothing. The Ghanians now state that their only option to earn money is to get to Europe or if they can afford it Brazil.
Well done USA/UK/France et al.
http://www.amren.com/news/2012/05/life-in-rhodesia-was-better-than-zimbabwe/
Life in Rhodesia was better under a white supremacist regime than in Zimbabwe. On that basis, should the world have done all it could to keep Ian Smith in charge?
Again. Uncomfortable as it is for the liberals of the world. Colonialism was actually a damned site better than the current situations of many countries in Africa/South America/Asia.
I used to work with a Rhodesian ex-pat. He told me that he employed a black husband and wife to look after his home. He provided them with a house and he educated their kids. It was a mutually beneficial arrangement and one that was quite common. Then Mugabe came to power and the country descended into tribalism and slaughter.
Undoubtedly true and as you say, will not sit well with some people.
Hindsight is wonderful eh? Things done for the best of reasons don't always work out well or as intended.0 -
i ve back packed and worked around Namibia, Zim and SA before and after independance and the whites should nt be running the show, its not their country and by being in charge, they stop them developing, good and bad.
Of course a white would say they are better off and wasnt he a nice person giving them a job but what about the segregation? the townships, lack of health care? and the over whelming racism of the whites in all these countries had/have toward the african?
i m not saying these are better now, in many cases they ll be worse but our continued interfrence in Africa is what has held it back for so long.
at what point would you have the blacks take over? or are you saying they should'nt or perhaps can't ? you both seem to be saying we whites are superior to Aficans, Asians etc
Maybe a return to slavery?0 -
i ve back packed and worked around Namibia, Zim and SA before and after independance and the whites should nt be running the show, its not their country and by being in charge, they stop them developing, good and bad.
Of course a white would say they are better off and wasnt he a nice person giving them a job but what about the segregation? the townships, lack of health care? and the over whelming racism of the whites in all these countries had/have toward the african?
i m not saying these are better now, in many cases they ll be worse but our continued interfrence in Africa is what has held it back for so long.
at what point would you have the blacks take over? or are you saying they should'nt or perhaps can't ? you both seem to be saying we whites are superior to Aficans, Asians etc
Maybe a return to slavery?
At what point in any part of our posts does it say white is better than black?
The point we are trying to make is that there was a better degree of stability and law and order in the old colonised countries. Granted not everything is perfect. It never is. Neither of us has advocated slavery.
If the colonies had continued and the social order had been allowed to evolve then I believe that Africa would have evolved into a far better continent than it is.Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
Thats the implication of what your saying but its for another thread......
the difference between ex colonial countries and Syria/Iraq is that these countries were being run for better or for worse by Syrians/Iraqis, what we have done is a sort of revisit of colonialism.
i think we can all agree its been a disaster.0 -
Syria has been under some form of colonialism since the Ottoman Empire, followed by the French with British complicty until after the war.0
-
i ve back packed and worked around Namibia, Zim and SA before and after independance and the whites should nt be running the show, its not their country and by being in charge, they stop them developing, good and bad.
Of course a white would say they are better off and wasnt he a nice person giving them a job but what about the segregation? the townships, lack of health care? and the over whelming racism of the whites in all these countries had/have toward the african?
i m not saying these are better now, in many cases they ll be worse but our continued interfrence in Africa is what has held it back for so long.
at what point would you have the blacks take over? or are you saying they should'nt or perhaps can't ? you both seem to be saying we whites are superior to Aficans, Asians etc
Maybe a return to slavery?
Neither I nor Goo have said anything about whites being better than any other race. I pointed out how doing the right thing for the right reasons sometimes has unforeseen results.
I postedLife in Rhodesia was better under a white supremacist regime than in Zimbabwe. On that basis, should the world have done all it could to keep Ian Smith in charge?
in the belief that no-one here, including me, would consider keeping Smith in charge although Zimbabwe is a basket case.
I drew the comparison to show the flaw in the argument for supporting Assad. People who are comfortable with supporting him would be never have supported a regime like Smith's, although he provided stability. The idea that we should support a tyrant in place, be it Saddam, Gaddafi or Assad, for the stability they would bring through oppression is just wrong.0 -
we dont know anything of the sort, T May says 7 have been stopped, strange how this rarely seems to lead to trials?
So the absence of a myriad of high profile trials means that attacks have not been foiled? IF that is the case, that means that because we have had no high scale atrocities for 10 years there must have been no threats? According to you, there would have been no threats to foil. I don't think for one minute that is what you believe but it is a consequence of your assertion. If there have been no atrocities and none have been foiled, where is the threat?
I don't get your position. On the one hand you are arguing for more expenditure to deal with the threats, now you seem to be saying that you are not sure there is a high threat?
No i am saying that cuts to Police numbers and the fireservice is foolhardy, as is the reduction in hospital capacity, we need these people both to prevent and deal with any attacks, the threats we have faced since 9/11 and 7/7 have not changed, proven by our threat status being the same now as it has for a long time.
When former police comms and army chiefs say similar, i take notice, cutting 5000 officers from the Met is just stupid - if we ve genuinely not the money, then we ll all have to put up with an income tax increase.
As for the governemt saying they ve foiled 7 attacks, how do we know? what was the scale of these? why have so few been charged? after all its a very serious offence
Would DC have announced this extra spending, welcome though it may be, if Paris hadnt happened, i dont believe he would, he is just grand standing.
Perhaps this is one of them, perhaps not.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3350116/Couple-accused-plotting-London-terror-attack-watched-martyrdom-clip.html0 -
Word of the day - Daeshbags.
Using it won't make the slightest difference in the bigger scheme of things, but I rather liked that.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
If you are sure that colonialism is a bad thing, you'd better not get us started on potential future European colonialism, aka the European 'Superstate'Syria has been under some form of colonialism since the Ottoman Empire, followed by the French with British complicty until after the war.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
If you are sure that colonialism is a bad thing, you'd better not get us started on potential future European colonialism, aka the European 'Superstate'Syria has been under some form of colonialism since the Ottoman Empire, followed by the French with British complicty until after the war.
Think you've got the wrong definition of colonialism.
Try again.0 -
If you are sure that colonialism is a bad thing, you'd better not get us started on potential future European colonialism, aka the European 'Superstate'Syria has been under some form of colonialism since the Ottoman Empire, followed by the French with British complicty until after the war.
Think you've got the wrong definition of colonialism.
Try again.
Soviet Union Mk2 ?Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0 -
You can't put an ideology against the wall and shoot it dead.
It's a multi faceted approach which should be aimed at addressing some of the drivers for recruitment and radicalisation as well as militarially.
True. But decent moderate Muslim preachers could do more to combat it.
There have been many documented instances of young Muslim men being 'radicalised' (That's the buzzword isn't it?) in mosques. As there are only Muslims in the mosques, they are the only ones that can bring any influence to bear.
Credit where it's due.
http://www.itakelibertywithmycoffee.com/2015/12/50-million-muslims-start-peace-campaign-and-openly-denounce-isis/0 -
Thank you Goo. You get the drift, Rick.
If you are sure that colonialism is a bad thing, you'd better not get us started on potential future European colonialism, aka the European 'Superstate'Syria has been under some form of colonialism since the Ottoman Empire, followed by the French with British complicty until after the war.
Think you've got the wrong definition of colonialism.
Try again.
Soviet Union Mk2 ?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Fairly sure EU isn't Leninist-Marxist dictatorship?
You're all well versed in hyperbole, but where's the accuracy?0 -
What, sovereign countries being controlled by a third party that they don't want to be controlled by? Sounds pretty accurate to me."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
What, sovereign countries being controlled by a third party that they don't want to be controlled by? Sounds pretty accurate to me.
That's not true either is it?
Governments who were elected by their citizens who then chose to sign up.
There are EU elections every term.
The governments of members can decide they want to leave whenever they want.
Like I said, big on hyperbole, weak on accuracy.
It reduces the effectiveness of argument if anything that isn't right is immediately declared communist.
The Soviet Union was complicit in its own holocaust which interned dozens of millions of people in concentration labour camps and millions died in them. It brutally put down uprisings, had a dictatorial rule backed by uninhibited instruments of terror and a fully functioning unsupervised surveillance state.
And you think the EU is the same? If so, I'd suggest you take off the tinfoil hat and go seek some medical advice for paranoia.0 -
I didnt say anything about communism.What, sovereign countries being controlled by a third party that they don't want to be controlled by? Sounds pretty accurate to me.
That's not true either is it?
Governments who were elected by their citizens who then chose to sign up.
There are EU elections every term.
The governments of members can decide they want to leave whenever they want.
Like I said, big on hyperbole, weak on accuracy.
It reduces the effectiveness of argument if anything that isn't right is immediately declared communist.
The Soviet Union was complicit in its own holocaust which interned dozens of millions of people in concentration labour camps and millions died in them. It brutally put down uprisings, had a dictatorial rule backed by uninhibited instruments of terror and a fully functioning unsupervised surveillance state.
And you think the EU is the same? If so, I'd suggest you take off the tinfoil hat and go seek some medical advice for paranoia.
But it is pretty clear that I have hit a raw nerve by pointing out the obvious contradiction in your position that being controlled by Britain is bad but being controlled by Europe is good. I dont think many people really believe that the EU is trying to do this all above board and with our consent - it is a constant, creeping extension of EU control. Which is why the referendum is a welcome event. At least we get a say which you clearly dont want to happen because you knoe you are in the minority. Not me who has a tin foil hat
I said recently that there were several reason why the Lib Dems were wiped out at the last GE and slavish Europhilia was one of them. But you don't seem to have learnt anything from that."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Thank you Goo. You get the drift, Rick.
If you are sure that colonialism is a bad thing, you'd better not get us started on potential future European colonialism, aka the European 'Superstate'Syria has been under some form of colonialism since the Ottoman Empire, followed by the French with British complicty until after the war.
Think you've got the wrong definition of colonialism.
Try again.
Soviet Union Mk2 ?Stevo 666 wrote:
I didnt say anything about communism.[url=<span class= wrote:Rick Chasey[/url]"][url=<span class= wrote:Stevo 666[/url]"]What, sovereign countries being controlled by a third party that they don't want to be controlled by? Sounds pretty accurate to me.
That's not true either is it?
Governments who were elected by their citizens who then chose to sign up.
There are EU elections every term.
The governments of members can decide they want to leave whenever they want.
Like I said, big on hyperbole, weak on accuracy.
It reduces the effectiveness of argument if anything that isn't right is immediately declared communist.
The Soviet Union was complicit in its own holocaust which interned dozens of millions of people in concentration labour camps and millions died in them. It brutally put down uprisings, had a dictatorial rule backed by uninhibited instruments of terror and a fully functioning unsupervised surveillance state.
And you think the EU is the same? If so, I'd suggest you take off the tinfoil hat and go seek some medical advice for paranoia.
But it is pretty clear that I have hit a raw nerve by pointing out the obvious contradiction in your position that being controlled by Britain is bad but being controlled by Europe is good. I dont think many people really believe that the EU is trying to do this all above board and with our consent - it is a constant, creeping extension of EU control. Which is why the referendum is a welcome event. At least we get a say which you clearly dont want to happen because you knoe you are in the minority. Not me who has a tin foil hat
I said recently that there were several reason why the Lib Dems were wiped out at the last GE and slavish Europhilia was one of them. But you don't seem to have learnt anything from that.
Goo compared the EU to the Soviet Union, you quoted it and said ' Rick gets the drift'.
So you did say something about communism, implicitly.
Where did I say that British control is bad but European control is good? Do you mean in a colonial context? You really don't understand colonialism if you think the EU is a type of colonialism, and you are deliberately obtuse if you refuse to accept that.
And the polls suggest the vote is neck & neck.
Though I did notice Osbourne is not planning for a Brexit, so either he's stupid if you're right, or he's confident it'll be IN.0 -
I get fed up with comparisons of very normal centre left politics with one of the most murderous governments ever.
It's just lazy and is as bed as comparing centre right politics to Fascism.
Just because the gulags don't hold the same position in collective memory doesn't make it any less incorrect. That was also a holocaust, and you should show some respect as such.0 -
I didnt say anything about communism.
But it is pretty clear that I have hit a raw nerve by pointing out the obvious contradiction in your position that being controlled by Britain is bad but being controlled by Europe is good. I dont think many people really believe that the EU is trying to do this all above board and with our consent - it is a constant, creeping extension of EU control. Which is why the referendum is a welcome event. At least we get a say which you clearly dont want to happen because you knoe you are in the minority. Not me who has a tin foil hat
I said recently that there were several reason why the Lib Dems were wiped out at the last GE and slavish Europhilia was one of them. But you don't seem to have learnt anything from that.
Cameron wont have a vote if it looks even remotely likely he ll lose, he ll come up with a suitable excuse, already being put back to 2017 from 2016.
His legacy that he was the PM that took UK out of EU ? i dont think so.0 -
DC is not just talking the talk, he is walking the walk.
It's just a pity he is walking backwards.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Missing the point again. Not trying to suggest that your Politics are communist or anything like it. Maybe your tinfoil hat is creating interference?I get fed up with comparisons of very normal centre left politics with one of the most murderous governments ever.
It's just lazy and is as bed as comparing centre right politics to Fascism.
Just because the gulags don't hold the same position in collective memory doesn't make it any less incorrect. That was also a holocaust, and you should show some respect as such.
The point was simply that the European superstate and old fashioned colonialism are similar insofar as they both represent situations where a country is controlled by another and it does not want to be controlled. The analagy doesnt need to be perfect or anywhere near it as I am only looking at that aspect.
That said, the existence of the commonwealth strongly suggests that quite a few British colonies were not that unhappy about being a British colony Some even retain the Queen as their head of state. And the noteable exceptions include the likes of Mugabe. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
At least we have a choice, which some would seek to deny us because they very condescendingly think this is too complex an issue to leave to the electorate and that they know best :roll: . Are you one of those who thinks we shouldn't vote on this?I didnt say anything about communism.
But it is pretty clear that I have hit a raw nerve by pointing out the obvious contradiction in your position that being controlled by Britain is bad but being controlled by Europe is good. I dont think many people really believe that the EU is trying to do this all above board and with our consent - it is a constant, creeping extension of EU control. Which is why the referendum is a welcome event. At least we get a say which you clearly dont want to happen because you knoe you are in the minority. Not me who has a tin foil hat
I said recently that there were several reason why the Lib Dems were wiped out at the last GE and slavish Europhilia was one of them. But you don't seem to have learnt anything from that.
Cameron wont have a vote if it looks even remotely likely he ll lose, he ll come up with a suitable excuse, already being put back to 2017 from 2016.
His legacy that he was the PM that took UK out of EU ? i dont think so.
Anyhow, if staying in the EU is such a no-brainer, the case should be easy for the likes of you to make and you have nothing to worry about (For the record, I am still undecided...) "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
At least we have a choice, which some would seek to deny us because they very condescendingly think this is too complex an issue to leave to the electorate and that they know best :roll: . Are you one of those who thinks we shouldn't vote on this?Cameron wont have a vote if it looks even remotely likely he ll lose, he ll come up with a suitable excuse, already being put back to 2017 from 2016.
His legacy that he was the PM that took UK out of EU ? i dont think so.
Anyhow, if staying in the EU is such a no-brainer, the case should be easy for the likes of you to make and you have nothing to worry about (For the record, I am still undecided...)
Cameron was forced, or he believes he was forced, into promising a vote to halt the rise of ukip, he is so weak a PM that should he again be forced into campaigning for OUT as he cant even get any benefit changes to our eu membership, he d be an asset to the IN vote
leaving eu has some pretty big risks, as by its very nature, its a step into the unknown, a PM with the character of DC hasnt the courage to risk that step, thats all Steve0, is that clear enough for you?0 -
Never mind what you think about why the vote came about. Do you think we should have a vote on it?
At least we have a choice, which some would seek to deny us because they very condescendingly think this is too complex an issue to leave to the electorate and that they know best :roll: . Are you one of those who thinks we shouldn't vote on this?Cameron wont have a vote if it looks even remotely likely he ll lose, he ll come up with a suitable excuse, already being put back to 2017 from 2016.
His legacy that he was the PM that took UK out of EU ? i dont think so.
Anyhow, if staying in the EU is such a no-brainer, the case should be easy for the likes of you to make and you have nothing to worry about (For the record, I am still undecided...)
Cameron was forced, or he believes he was forced, into promising a vote to halt the rise of ukip, he is so weak a PM that should he again be forced into campaigning for OUT as he cant even get any benefit changes to our eu membership, he d be an asset to the IN vote
leaving eu has some pretty big risks, as by its very nature, its a step into the unknown, a PM with the character of DC hasnt the courage to risk that step, thats all Steve0, is that clear enough for you?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Never mind what you think about why the vote came about. Do you think we should have a vote on it?thats all Steve0, is that clear enough for you?
IF there is a vote, anyone who can understand basic english ie be able to read or have help to understand the question, should have a vote, which will rule you out.0 -
Always be yourself, unless you can be Aaron Rodgers....Then always be Aaron Rodgers.0
