ChezGiven 0 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Leazes reminds me of General Cheeseburger from the Kenny Everett show. "Round them up in a field... and bomb the bastards!!" Used to love him. A bit un-pc these days like. A bit un-pc but all done in the best POSSIBLE taste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22007 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I loved Everett until I was old enough to understand what a complete Thatcherite tory cunt he was. Even at that age I couldn't give a toss he was a raving homosexual mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I loved Everett until I was old enough to understand what a complete Thatcherite tory cunt he was. Even at that age I couldn't give a toss he was a raving homosexual mind. His "Let's bomb Russia" speech was quite funny though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I loved Everett until I was old enough to understand what a complete Thatcherite tory cunt he was. On a similar note I never watched The Sky at Night after spotting Patrick Moore at a celeb bash given by Thatcher in either 82 or 87. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Patrick Moore is fucking nuts, he's great value. His support for Thatcher can be admonished on grounds of mental illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22007 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Could never hate good old Patrick personally. I think Everett was much more in your face about his (far right) Conservative views than Moore ever has been. Plus, didn't Moore fly a spitfire in WW2? Anyone doing that deserves respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 It hasn't. It's gone up a great deal... Civilian deaths have gone up a reported 50% on pre-invasion numbers. In Falluja 150% over pre-invasion rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey..._War_casualties The death rate is vastly increased because of Al Quaeda's attacks on civilians in Iraq. Saddam cooperated with Al Quaeda in the weeks before the invasion, allowing Zaarqawi to gain a foothold in the country and instigate a civil war. Why make the Stalin comparison? It makes no sense. Criticism of Stalin wasn't allowed for a while after WW2 because of his role in defeating Hitler. It would also have been fucking impossible to take Stalin on. The battle in Iraq was always going to be fixing a society that had been raped by decades of totalitarian rule. That process will ultimately take decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 It hasn't. It's gone up a great deal... Civilian deaths have gone up a reported 50% on pre-invasion numbers. In Falluja 150% over pre-invasion rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey..._War_casualties The death rate is vastly increased because of Al Quaeda's attacks on civilians in Iraq. Saddam cooperated with Al Quaeda in the weeks before the invasion, allowing Zaarqawi to gain a foothold in the country and instigate a civil war. Why make the Stalin comparison? It makes no sense. Criticism of Stalin wasn't allowed for a while after WW2 because of his role in defeating Hitler. It would also have been fucking impossible to take Stalin on. The battle in Iraq was always going to be fixing a society that had been raped by decades of totalitarian rule. That process will ultimately take decades. How very noble of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Patrick Moore is fucking nuts, he's great value. His support for Thatcher can be admonished on grounds of mental illness. You sure that's the word you meant to use there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) Nah, I meant diminished. Thanks Chez also. I know Chez has been on an office management training course, so now he is basically trained to be a fascist. While he may think a totalitarian regime is fine, the reality is it breaks the society that lives under it. Edited March 16, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Nah, I meant diminished. Thanks Chez also. Consider yourself absolved on the grounds on diminished vocabulary Btw, I once got Patrick Moore's autograph in Tenerife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 You're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Nah, I meant diminished. Thanks Chez also. Consider yourself absolved on the grounds on diminished vocabulary Btw, I once got Patrick Moore's autograph in Tenerife. Fuck off, you lugubrious popinjay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Nah, I meant diminished. Thanks Chez also. Consider yourself absolved on the grounds on diminished vocabulary Btw, I once got Patrick Moore's autograph in Tenerife. Fuck off, you lugubrious popinjay. That's what Patrick Moore said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Patrick Moore said all women are cunts, except his mum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) It hasn't. It's gone up a great deal... Civilian deaths have gone up a reported 50% on pre-invasion numbers. In Falluja 150% over pre-invasion rates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey..._War_casualties The death rate is vastly increased because of Al Quaeda's attacks on civilians in Iraq. Saddam cooperated with Al Quaeda in the weeks before the invasion, allowing Zaarqawi to gain a foothold in the country and instigate a civil war. Why make the Stalin comparison? It makes no sense. Criticism of Stalin wasn't allowed for a while after WW2 because of his role in defeating Hitler. It would also have been fucking impossible to take Stalin on. The battle in Iraq was always going to be fixing a society that had been raped by decades of totalitarian rule. That process will ultimately take decades. I think Leazes assumes that there'll be no resistance when we invade a third middle eastern country. I think I heard somewhere before that we'd be welcomed as liberators. The Stalin comparison makes no sense at all. Intentionally so, in light of Leazes comparisons between Gaddafi and Hussein and his apparent view that we're obligated to depose all the nasty pasties in the world rather than have a cup of tea and a chat. Edited March 16, 2011 by Happy Face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I think Leazes assumes that there'll be no resistance when we invade a third middle eastern country. I think I heard somewhere before that we'd be welcomed as liberators. The Stalin comparison makes no sense at all. Intentionally so, in light of Leazes comparisons between Gaddafi and Hussein and his apparent view that we're obligated to depose all the nasty pasties in the world rather than have a cup of tea and a chat. Ah, fair enough then. Do you not feel we have more of a moral obligation to depose the two men in question, seeing as we aided them in the past? With regard to being welcomed as liberators, the circumstances are vastly different in this case. A no-fly zone would be welcomed by the UAL and by the rebels themselves. That's referring exclusively to the NFZ though, I'm not sure where you two are at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I think Leazes assumes that there'll be no resistance when we invade a third middle eastern country. I think I heard somewhere before that we'd be welcomed as liberators. The Stalin comparison makes no sense at all. Intentionally so, in light of Leazes comparisons between Gaddafi and Hussein and his apparent view that we're obligated to depose all the nasty pasties in the world rather than have a cup of tea and a chat. Ah, fair enough then. Do you not feel we have more of a moral obligation to depose the two men in question, seeing as we aided them in the past? With regard to being welcomed as liberators, the circumstances are vastly different in this case. A no-fly zone would be welcomed by the UAL and by the rebels themselves. That's referring exclusively to the NFZ though, I'm not sure where you two are at. Make up for our interfering with their sovereignty in the past by unilaterally interfering with their sovereignty? Nah. No objections to taking other countries along with us if they can be convinced. But I get the impression the preference is to keep a cork on things rather than risk a democratic outcome that could see ANYONE get in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 In the G8, its the Germans putting the skids on things, the US, UK and France are all signed up but Merkel wont countenance it. Angela Merkel, who told an EU summit last week that the no-fly zone idea was potentially dangerous. "What is our plan if we create a no-fly zone and it doesn't work? Do we send in ground troops?" she said. "We have to think this through. Why should we intervene in Libya when we don't intervene elsewhere?" Personally i think the Germans dont want the cost of intervention when it is mainly the french and british who will gain economically. The arguments they give are sound but not convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 In the G8, its the Germans putting the skids on things, the US, UK and France are all signed up but Merkel wont countenance it. Angela Merkel, who told an EU summit last week that the no-fly zone idea was potentially dangerous. "What is our plan if we create a no-fly zone and it doesn't work? Do we send in ground troops?" she said. "We have to think this through. Why should we intervene in Libya when we don't intervene elsewhere?" Personally i think the Germans dont want the cost of intervention when it is mainly the french and british who will gain economically. The arguments they give are sound but not convincing. The same story has Clinton saying there's "no US support" for imposing a no fly zone... http://www.newser.com/story/114204/libya-n...ks-g8-plan.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Whether it's general chat or the newcastle board, leasezmag is by far the most tedious poster on here. He contributes absolutely nothing of interest other than his tired old attempts at point scoring and proving he was right. Comes across like a lonely, bitter and hateful old man. and you are who exactly ? You live in Dulwich, you don't go to games, you haven't answered my pm asking if you knew my mate Gary [who does go to games] and have absolutely fuck all to say about anything, and you were completely wrong when you criticised the Halls and Shepherd for not winning the premiership title. Doctor fuckin Gloom ? Too right. If you can't enjoy playing in the Champions League and europe and the players it takes to do it, you can't enjoy anything. You can also contribute to this thread if you like, which that post above certainly isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 In the G8, its the Germans putting the skids on things, the US, UK and France are all signed up but Merkel wont countenance it. Angela Merkel, who told an EU summit last week that the no-fly zone idea was potentially dangerous. "What is our plan if we create a no-fly zone and it doesn't work? Do we send in ground troops?" she said. "We have to think this through. Why should we intervene in Libya when we don't intervene elsewhere?" Personally i think the Germans dont want the cost of intervention when it is mainly the french and british who will gain economically. The arguments they give are sound but not convincing. The same story has Clinton saying there's "no US support" for imposing a no fly zone... http://www.newser.com/story/114204/libya-n...ks-g8-plan.html Thought I read this morning they came on board with the idea but expect China/Russia to oppose it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Qaddafi Closing in on Rebel Stronghold Libya's revolution is in grave danger of collapsing as Muammar Qaddafi closes in on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, reports the Guardian. Qaddafi's forces defeated opposition fighters in the town of Ajdabiya Wednesday, sweeping away the last line of resistance protecting the core of the rebel movement. Many rebels are preparing to fight to the death, as Western forces continue to dither over imposing a no-fly zone over the country. Terrified Libyans are now streaming out of the country, fearful of retribution should Qaddafi prevail. Meanwhile, the United States has said it wouldn't block attempts to approve a no-fly zone over Libya in the UN, but that it's probably too late for such measures to make a difference. Just getting the warships positioned for the no-fly zone would take a couple weeks, said administration officials. The proposal won't be considered in the UN until late this week or early next week anyway (the weekend is apparently a no-work zone). On Tuesday, President Obama huddled with advisers to consider options such as boosting rebel forces with Qaddafi's seized assets and scrambling Libyan government radio signals. No decision was made, however. Guardian | Wednesday, March 16, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) Make up for our interfering with their sovereignty in the past by unilaterally interfering with their sovereignty? Nah. No objections to taking other countries along with us if they can be convinced. But I get the impression the preference is to keep a cork on things rather than risk a democratic outcome that could see ANYONE get in. I meant on a moral level making up for, in Gaddafi's case, arming and rehabilitating him as a trade ally in Europe. I think some people are getting confused. I don't particularly care about the motivations of, say, the UK government in taking an action; if it will result in a positive outcome, that is more important. I think a no-fly zone would have been such a case and could have had a positive outcome for the Libyan rebels, but according to the latest reports the rebel forces are near defeat. Frustrating. My motivation for support of the no-fly zone is to see Gaddafi toppled; not for Britain's interests, but for the rebels'. Edited March 16, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4411 Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Isn't there a danger of assuming the rebels are any "better" than Gadaffi? What happened in Egypt looks good and a genuine grass roots movement but the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood did look dodgy to me. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something about Libya - just that diving in and saying anyone who opposes Gadaffi "must" be good is a bit quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now