Not to take this off topic but that is just wrong. When you have both the pro-constitution and anti-constitution groups saying Lisbon was functionally identical to the constitution you can take a solid guess that nothing of import changed. Labour and the Lib Dems failed to honour their election manifesto promise out of no other reason than cowardice. It is certainly the reason why the Lib Dems will never got my vote again.
Iran - does it stop with them?
- Thread starter dangerstat
- Start date
Not to take this off topic but that is just wrong. When you have both the pro-constitution and anti-constitution groups saying Lisbon was functionally identical to the constitution you can take a solid guess that nothing of import changed. Labour and the Lib Dems failed to honour their election manifesto promise out of no other reason than cowardice. It is certainly the reason why the Lib Dems will never got my vote again.
But Dubya is long gone, so surely there's no need for Iran to try and flex it's "muscles" by defying every protocol and international etiquette in the book? If only they could see that if they play ball now, and stop coming out with anti-west tripe the international community will slowly but surely trust them more and they may well end up being able to enrich their own uranium. But of course, Ahmadinejad has farrrr too much of a chip on his shoulder for that to happen.
It's a discussion out of the realms of this topic, and my views on the treaty are quite different from what I posted. But there were certainly the 'red lines' that were secured. In any event, if this country were to go to the polls there would be too many daily fail, bnp sorts that would threaten to ruin something that has done exactly what it set out to do, ensure peace in Europe.
It wont end until everyone stops. Otherwise it'll be the building of bigger and stronger weapons under the cloak of deterrence.
It was tweak, not changed. And most experts who understand it, also claim very very little was actually change and its technically the same treaty.
Even so, WE vote people into power, THEY should bow to us, not the other way around.
Treading a very thin line there, because i would call them jobless idiots personally.
Also might want to check this out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest
The italians had over 3 million people march and it was listed in the Guinness book of records as the largest anti war march ever.
Just goes to show democracy in its current form, doesnt work.
Fear fear fear and more fear. there is a famous book about how inciting fear in the public allows you to control them. 2 wars, terrorist bombings and 9/11 are all good methods of inducing fear to control the public.
Even though there is evidence of if the bombs had not been dropped, 100,000's of people would still be alive and the death toll would be substansually less then with the bombs?
Amazing your complete disregard for human life and your warmongering attitude, i can see why you support america so much.
I've just released a statement demanding that you denounce america.
Does that mean you should listen?
Or are they just not bowing to the wests pressure to be controlled by america?
I already feel safer.
War in Afgan, War in Iraq, South Korea and Iran hating the west, Middle east and Muslim communities hating the west, American and Russia playing war games, Isreal starving innocent people, swine flu "pandemic" bull and many more.
So glad that Europe originally created for easy trading is now electing a president, creating laws for the countries and taxing them to boot.
Sigh, this one sure likes to argue. Are you the same guy that's a laughing stock on this forum for all the conspiracy nonsense you come out with? Maybe i'm thinking of someone else....
I also don't really understand your fear argument, I also worry we may be treading into dangerous conspiracy nonsense here, an area that i simply won't entertain any discussion on. But you still don't seem to have disproved my democracy argument, even if some double digit IQ people were influenced by fear they STILL HAD A VOTE, and that, by definition is democracy. Are you arguing whether the 2005 election took place?
Interestingly, you seem to ignore the thousands that could have died in wars that simply didn't exist thanks to the presence of nukes.
We can all sit and ponder about how nice a world without nukes would be, but that will NEVER happen. It's pointless trying to think about it or achieve it, it just won't happen. End of story.
Ok so you've linked to a wikipedia article showing a march in Italy... I fear we may be going beyond the realms of this discussion.
I also don't really understand your fear argument, I also worry we may be treading into dangerous conspiracy nonsense here, an area that i simply won't entertain any discussion on. But you still don't seem to have disproved my democracy argument, even if some double digit IQ people were influenced by fear they STILL HAD A VOTE, and that, by definition is democracy. Are you arguing whether the 2005 election took place?
I would welcome your evidence, although sadly most WW2 books point to it being the end of WW2 and believe more would have died.
Interestingly, you seem to ignore the thousands that could have died in wars that simply didn't exist thanks to the presence of nukes.
Don't get me wrong, I think many areas of American policy need to be looked at, I just happen to favor our closest ally over some nutcase that would quite like to change my country and the way the western world operates, no thanks.
Of course it doesn't, don't be so silly. You don't happen to be speaking as over 200 signed members of a national parliament do you?
Last edited:
Please point out to me where I mentioned Iraq, Korea or Iran in that text? My point stands, Europe hasn't been at war.
Which has much more to do with the EEC than the EU. It has basically made it completely uneconomical to go to war with another european state.
The EEC was the EU?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Economic_Community
Unless you mean the Eurozone?
Come now, was there any need? You've just dragged this entire discussion down.
I think you did that by verging on conspiracy talk when speaking of controlling the public through fear. What utter rubbish.
The EEC was the EU?
I was being lazy. It is the economic side of the EU (which is pretty much what the EEC started as) that has stopped the conflict not the increasing political control. That is not to say the increasing political side is good or bad as that is outside of this topic, but is relatively unimportant as far as peace goes.
So the early form of the EU... The EEC helped to promote peace in Europe. I agree
You were linking the Lisbon Treaty (very much heavy on the poltical side of the EU) to ensuring peace in Europe, which is what I disagreed with.
You have to look at it in terms of history though, going back to Treaty of Paris and Treaty of Rome days, the rationale was to create a community that would trade with each other and help Germany return to economic prosperity, thus promoting peace through trade. By the time the U.K joined there was already institutions like the ECJ in full operation making quite influential judgements, anyone could see the sort of community it was turning into. But yes, I think a vote is needed, if only to put the matter to bed once and for all.
Has it really taken you 20 minutes to find that link? All I see is a link about a former head of MI5 who seems to oppose new terrorism legislation.
Kudos for trying to find an article to rebut what I was saying about Iraq by finding an article that doesn't mention Iraq once.
Thanks.
No, it took me all of 5 minutes, and the article clearly shows the ex head of Mi5 saying the government is using fear to control us via taking away our civil liberties.
Without civil liberties, what control do we have over our own lives?
The right to vote, which the last time I checked we still have.
See, i'm still sticking to my original point about the voting and Iraq issue, instead of trying to go off on some civil liberties crusade
