General politics discussion thread

[Vice]

There's a bit more to it than that, iran has been a bit naughty with helping out insurgents in iraq, for one, won't do as it's told re it's nuclear weapons (not just by america, but by the international community as a whole) says some rather confrontational stuff about about israel etc etc.

Not to say war won't be about oil, or even that America's behaviour isn't as naughty as Iran's in alot of cases. But there it is, it may kick off, if so America will have no real right or moral justification for it, but it'll be Iran's own fucking fault.

I agree; it would be about oil (there's a reocurring pattern in all the places we don't get involved) and there'd be no moral justification or right for this war. As for it being Iran's own fault, I agree that any wrongdoing on their part is reprehensible, but they've never actually done anything to us, have they? As for the threats against Israel, again, they haven't actually done anything on that issue, and Israel is responsible for massive atrocities in the region, so that rhetoric against them is not surprising and is nothing by comparison.

 

I've covered the mind-boggling hypocrisy of the nukes issue.

 

I just don't think we have any right meddling in that part of the world or countries that aren't ours. And if we invade Iran for their wrongdoings and that's supposedly their own fault, doesn't any other country in the world then have the reason to go to war with us over our major atrocities all over the world and then that would be our own fault? Any actual wrongdoing by Iran or any country would be a crime, would it not? I don't believe that the correct response to our atrocities is for us to be invaded; Blair, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Obama, etc. should all be put on trail, as should others who commit atrocities.

 

The main reason, nowadays, that the US gets testy with Iran is that one of Iran's stated aims is to blow Israel back to the stone age, and the US rightly suspects that once they have nuclear weapons they might be tempted to do just that. Although, considering how many nukes are aimed at them, I have some sympathy with the Iranians on this one.

Agreed, it's no surprise that Iran wants nukes. It's seen its neighbours invaded and bombed, and it's constantly under threat. As for Israel, again, Iran can say all they want, but they haven't actually done anything. And I doubt they'd actually use the nukes either - Iran would be incinerated in seconds.

 

The US has nukes, and I'm sure they're tempted to invade or meddle in a lot more places yet. No one's stopping this dangerous, rogue state with WMDs.

 

Central Asia fascinates the West because it's so fucking huge, and with such vast natural reserves. In many ways, keeping the area constantly subdued has been to the West's advantage. As you can see now with the Arabian states, once the local populace get full control of their own destiny and resources, they become world players and less likely to kowtow to the US.

Just to add to that, I'm shocked that anyone still falls for this "humanitarian intervention" bullshit. It's always so obvious that we're getting involved in these places for their resources and our strategic/economic interests. The West is shit scared of authentic democracy in the region, and the paper-thin ostensible reasons for intervention that claim otherwise are pretty sickening.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Vice

[David]

There's a bit more to it than that, iran has been a bit naughty with helping out insurgents in iraq, for one, won't do as it's told re it's nuclear weapons (not just by america, but by the international community as a whole) says some rather confrontational stuff about about israel etc etc.

It's also worth remembering that those "insurgents" would be considered "freedom fighters" in certain countries, so there's no doubt that Iran would probably have seen themselves helping a fellow nation who were under attack from a foreign invader.

 

As for the international community, Iran probably think "fuck 'em", and who can blame them. When that same community have no problems with the US & Israel stocking the same weapons that they're getting all antsy about Iran having, you can kind of see their point.

[David]

I've been reading a few reports & articles on various websites, and have noticed that there's a growing opinion that the BNP are looking to take a more "militant" approach to politics in the coming year. This is undoubtedly due to the emergence of the EDL and its associated groups over the past year or so.

 

Has anyone else noticed this or heard anything similar? I assumed the BNP were dying a slow death?

[Up Chuck]

Last I heard (can't remember where), the BNP were in all sorts of financial trouble and would be done within a few months. That doesn't necessarily contradict what you've heard, I suppose - could be one last hurrah, or a new approach now that they haven't got money to spend on stunningly low-rent party political broadcasts with random Asian members of the public doing the most obvious reading-off-a-card ever captured on film.

[Kiffy]

Haven't read anything saying they'll be more militant. Griffin will no doubt be doing everything he can to try and get the name out more and increase funding but they're basically fucked. Half of them have migrated to the british freedom party after being kicked out by, or wanting away from, griffin.

A bitter leadership battle last year basically split the party, half voting for Andrew Brons, half voting for griffin. (Griffin won by like 10 votes) and Brons and Griffin are now trading insults and both inferring the other may be a left wing infiltrator brought in to destory the party.

The EDL's seen a massive downturn in turnouts at it's marches, and suffers similar (slightly more scarey in some ways) infighting with breakaway groups forming (the NWI infidels, like the edl but opening anti-jewish, black, catholic, gay etc etc being the largest at this point) and stories of chaps turning up at other chaps family's houses and being all intimidating and nasty in front of their families and stuff.

And it split further when Tommy announced he was joining up with the british freedom party. Alot of edl members feeling very let down by his moving into politics.

Tommy's year ended with him getting a bit of a kicking from his local football firm cos he'd got too lippy with the top boy, he immediately put out a press release showing his facial injuries, and blaming it on muslims who were hiding in a car driven by a woman who looked like his wife, so he slowed and walked over, and many muslims with knuckle dusters got out, knocked him out, then sang merry christmas at him after they'd knocked him out (how he knew this while unconscious, has not been disclosed).

[Astro Hollywood]

Googled the thing above, and it's all very funny:

 

http://edlnews.co.uk/edl-news/the-tommy-ro...-beating-fiasco

 

Fake, make-up applied bruises!

[David]

Excellent choice of a source there, Woy.

[Astro Hollywood]

Excellent choice of a source there, Woy.

 

Another cracking post from David, there.

[David]

Excellent choice of a source there, Woy.

Another cracking post from David, there.

[Kiffy]

The edl news, while being largely anti-edl (as most news sources tend to be? I mean it's hard to be anything else) did report, word for word, the press release tommy put out.

Anyone can rip holes in such a clearly fabricated story. You only need to read the press release to see that David.

[David]

The edl news, while being largely anti-edl (as most news sources tend to be? I mean it's hard to be anything else) did report, word for word, the press release tommy put out.

Anyone can rip holes in such a clearly fabricated story. You only need to read the press release to see that David.

I know that, but would it have been hard to at least provide a link to a somewhat neutral source? That website is as cringeworthy as the a lot of the pro-EDL sites out there.

[Kiffy]

As the EDL news article pointed out, none of the normal media cared about the story as it was so clearly fabricated. So there's not really alot of other places he could link. There's the EDL website, who obviously claim the whole thing's real, the NWI infidels website, who know full well it was the luton mig's, or the edl/hope not hate/various other anti-fascist sites. It's not anywhere else.

[Keith Houchen]

Anyone been reading the stuff that has come out from the National Archive? I found this one interesting.

 

Alan Travis, home affairs editor

The Guardian, Friday 30 December 2011

Article history

 

Toxteth, Liverpool, where rioting prompted ministers to consider a 'managed decline' during which residents would be encourage to more elsewhere. Photograph: Sipa Press/Rex Features

Margaret Thatcher's closest ministers came close to writing off Liverpool in the aftermath of the 1981 inner-city riots and even raised the prospect of its partial evacuation, according to secret cabinet papers released on Friday.

 

They told her that the "unpalatable truth" was that they could not halt Merseyside's decline and her chancellor, Sir Geoffrey Howe, warned her not to waste money trying to "pump water uphill" and telling her the city was "much the hardest nut to crack".

 

The cabinet papers released by the National Archives under the 30-year rule reveal Thatcher's closest advisers told her that the "concentration of hopelessness" on Merseyside was very largely self-inflicted with its record of industrial strife.

 

The files show that when Michael Heseltine pressed the case to save Britain's inner cities with his cabinet paper, It Took a Riot, they ensured his demand for

[The Four Horsemen]

Been a having a good read of this thread and theres some very good points put over.

 

So heres a couple of questions to finish the year on:

 

If a snap-election was called in the spring after the lib/con coalition falls apart (which it has to at some point) what do the inhabitants of the UKFF think the result would be?

 

Personally I would go for some thing along the lines of this: Conservative majority of 2, just enough to get them in.

 

Also theres the US election next year, the Republicans haven't chosen their representatives yet but who ever goes up against Obama is in for a tough job.

Yes there has been some tough times during his first term but he has brought back the US troops, bumped off Bin Laden and let the rest of the World sort out the Libya situation, yes it was nice not to see the US do its usual thing of storming in on another "hearts & minds" mission.

 

Im gonna go for an Obama landslide much like Reagan did against Mondale in 1984 (he won 1 state and D.C).

 

The main thing that Obama has going against him is that he is far to friendly with the Wall Street power men and the bankers, that could be his Achilles Heel.

[Trevor]

Big Trev thinks personally that the Tories might get something like a minority victory, Labour is doomed with Ed Miliband though, just completely doomed. In terms of the American presidential race, it's going to probably be Romney that wins the Republican nomination, the poor sod's definatly earned it too. He's had to go toe to toe with Bachman first, then Perry, then Cain, then Gingrich, then Paul, the Republicans are evidently desperate for anyone but good old Mormon Mitt. Your point about Obama's leniancy towards the bankers is a bit flawed Horsemen. Whilst true, what exactly are the usual Democrat voters going to do to voice their disaproval? Go vote for Republican, a party that will do even less?