LOLZ so you tried to shoot down my post without even reading it? His party 'would' have made worse? So now you're a fortune teller too? Just try invalidating the points rather than trying to spin around them because you're making yourself look bloody idiotic. If it's are beyond you, just say so and bow out gracefully rather than attack the messenger in an effort to hide your failings.
I succesfully shot down your post without having to read it. Feel free to try and point out what I was wrong about, though. If you believe that the Tories would have averted the banking crisis, then explain why or provide some evidence to support that assertion. They not only backed Labour loosening some of the restrictions that lead to it hitting hard over here, but they wanted less regulation. You're asking me to invalidate irrelevant points. I'm struggling to understand how you've missed that.
Of course the Tories would have made it worse have you not read the last page? Everyone has explained why. Carry on with your deflecting tactics, though. Because it's clearly working so well for you (!)
Just because Old Faithfull seems to be struggling to grasp what everyone's saying about the Tories, I'll link to something to help him out. Here's David Cameron's words in support of the banking system, by courtesy of The Telegraph, so there's no accusation of bias or spin: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...t-politicians-used-to-say-about-the-City.html This part struck me as being particularly ridiculous, in hindsight: "Over the past 15 years, governments across the world have put into practice the principles of monetary discipline and free enterprise. The result? A vast increase in global wealth. The world economy more stable than for a generation." Really? How's that working out for you now, Dave? Don't worry, you can continue to **** over the majority of the population and dish out peerages to tossers, as your mates in the media will help you out. Your old chum Rebakah Brooks has got her old job back now too, so all's good in the world.
Looks like the parasites are after Corbyn again, this time after his comments about Bin Laden. Labour leadership: Corbyn under fire for Bin Laden comments In an interview with Iranian Press TV show The Agenda, Mr Corbyn described the attack on the World Trade Centre, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the death of Bin Laden as tragedies, arguing "the solution has got to be law not war". "There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process," he said. "This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon tragedy." Sorry but he is absolutely spot on. Of course he should have been put on trial and it was a tragedy that he wasn't put on trial. We could have got to the bottom of all this and found out ALL THE PLAYERS behind 9/11 and other terrorist activities. The whole story surrounding Bin Laden's killing is suspect to say the least and it reasonably points to some cover up.
Someone posted a link on Twitter of an article written by Boris Johnson where he says Bin Laden should have been tried for his crimes
To be honest the right thing was to put him on trial. If they did the same for Sadam, even if that was a bit of a kangaroo court, then the "most wanted man" Bin Laden should have been. Considering he was an ex CIA man, I'd imagine they didn't want to take the risk.
Definitely too many skeletons in Bin Laden's closet for him to have been put on trial !! He would have exposed far too much for the US and UK govt to allow that. The whole Bin Laden family were in bed with the US for a long time. Osama's brother was business partner of George W Bush in the US oil industry before he became president. The links to CIA, business deals, arms deals, their support for Afganistan against the USSR and the US arming the Mujahideen would have blown too many of their secrets. They wanted him dead and they made no bones about it.
Spot on. There were/are in bed with the Saudi's, Bin Laden's and powerful families in that region. But they've got historical links with many dodgy groups and are still at it with the so called "ISIS". They created it, funded and now against it. What a clever lot they are.
It's also what the UK did with Gaddafi to, as Mehdi Hasan so aptly puts it, "turn Libya into a Jihadist hellhole". How can a country that was seen as an ally for so long suddenly become a threat to the west? I'm not a fan of everything Gaddafi did by any means, but he wanted to strengthen & unite Africa by creating a single currency that was backed by the resources in his continent. This would have been a major threat to the world bank and the west because it could have meant that the Dinar would be worth more than the Pound or even the Dollar, thus revolutionising the economic landscape. So what did they have to do to keep their economic dominance? Obliterate Libya.
Gaddafi was a fruitcake and any talk of uniting Africa was a pipe dream, at best. Allies turn to enemies frequently, especially when you ally yourself with people out of desperation or coincidental shared aims. Those that aren't in power often change their direction when they achieve their aims, too. My favourite fictional example of this is from Rambo 3. The protagonist fights off the evil Russians with the help of the heroic Mujahedeen. Something tells me that a modern remake of that one might be off the cards for the foreseeable future! If you're going with dictators that were done away with over economic choices, then Saddam's the obvious choice. He started trading oil in Euros, instead of dollars and that was the end of that. If others had followed his lead, then the **** would have hit the fan.
There's another reason that the powerful Western countries ally themselves with dictators though, in that is supresses the local populace, allowing for cheap labour to Western companies, and also keeps unrest and discord in the area - think about how little peace there's been in the Middle East because of Israel, Saddam, Saudi, Turkey ect, all ally's of the West and in particular the USA, but also Britain. Even Iran in the 80's when it was at war with Iraq and other countries received arms from Regan. A destabilised region is less likely to unite against Western hegemony and interference, while also being easier to control as they are weaker and need more immediate things - like weapons, peace deals, aid, help with an enemy... Allowing things like the pipeline through Afghanistan to be built, cheaper access to oil and resources, the placement of missile silos (Turkey) or army/air force bases (Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan).
I wouldn't be so sure with the way that Putin is heading ! I'm sure the U.S. would readily arm the Mujahideen again if they thought they could use them as an ally against an increasingly hostile Russia.
They have already launched a proxy war on Russia by training far-right Ukrainian Nationalists, applying economic sanctions, setting up bases and missile defence systems around Russia etc. It takes two to tango and Nato is poking the bear with a very large stick!
I don't doubt that the US would do that. I doubt that Hollywood would make a film about it in the next few years, though. Maybe something with Tom Cruise defeating both sides? Not using his magical Scientology powers. Not that.
Apparently they've already remade the shocking Red Dawn - original where Russian troops parashoot into the USA and take over everything overnight, only to be stopped by Patrick Swayze and a group of teenagers - only using North Korean troops instead, absolutely ridiculous!
North Korea can't even invade South Korea. How is Mr Ronery going to manage to take over the US? Just looked it up and it was originally Chinese troops. They changed it so that they could sell it to China!
