If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Everyone but Steelgate. This guy clearly has problems of a mental order, it is not big or clever to abuse someone in this condition.
Your pathetic attempt at humour is noted.
Thanks, T., I was just about to post the exact same point.
Steelgate, how hard can this be for you to grasp? You spout on about communism. We listen, painful as it is for our ears, what with all the exclamation marks you use. We say, "Has this ever been tried before?" We check the history books and see that, yes, it has. And that every such attempt for the last three centuries has either
(a) been exceedingly short-lived; or
(b) quickly degenerated into a brutally repressive regime.
Faced with this evidence of historical fact we conclude that as much as communism may appear to be a nice idea, it is in fact not practical and therefore should be avoided.
Oh, by the way, what's wrong with us taking on Iraq on the grounds of oil? Like I said, it'll make your protests so much harder to get to if/when oil prices soar -- su much less likely with Iraqi oil coming in through Europe.
Steelgate. You're wrong. History says so. We say so. Hush now.
Every other so called communist revolution since then has been based on Stalin's state capitalist regime and not the democratic workers form Karl Marx advocated. Therefore there were no attempts to try true communism after Russia. What was established in places like China, North Korea, Cuba, and Eastern Europe was undemocratic Stalinist state capitalism which means centralised party control not Marxist communism which means democratic workers control of the means of production and production for need not profit.
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Communism only comes in as a democratic force when the other centrist parties are having difficulty. For example, if Labour in the UK completely screwed the economy, and the Tories did the same, people would be disillusioned with mainstream parties, and therefore turn elsewhere, e.g. BNP, or Communist.
Therefore, in conditions of crisis, were the Communists to take over, you argue that they would turn Stalinist by the conditions imposed on them. Ahem. Therefore, all Communism will turn Stalinist. No?
Anyway, those countries which are, as you imply, ideal for Communism, those with intellectual, and advanced populations, are precisely those which embrace capitalism to its fullest extent.
So... in summary, Communism is always destined to become Stalinist by virtue of conditions of genesis, and it will be rejected by those who it would suit best. Precisely how can you argue that it is workable?
Suits me, less to fight this time. You seem to forget these are the people that looted, tortured, raped, and killed Kuwati civilians, or is that OK with you derek ? these are the people that killed Coalition forces or is that OK with you derek ?, these are the people that are/were trying to ethnicaly cleanse their own people or is that OK with you derek ?
derek try living in the real world for once.
Communism is a utopian ideal that has failed to work. We always end up with that awful " Dictatorship of the Proletariat".
Translation: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or some other knucklehead bent on killing millions of his countrymen.
America runs the planet and Capitalism is the system that works. Remember that cash talks and bulls**t walks.
Not that it will happen but all of England could protest and it will not stop the Americans if they want to smash Iraq.
If you are so supportive of Iraq you might think of volunteering to defend it! I think you would look brilliant in an Iraqi uniform.
Your side lost the Cold War so be a good fellow and accept the humiliating and total defeat of the leftist weenies!
Thank you for the beautiful way in which you compared me to Saddam Hussein. I'll have to admit that is a first for me.
Now I have considered your opinion let me assure you that you are indeed a complete arsehole. We already knew that you were a hipocrite but your moronic outpourings just add greater proof to our cause.
Little reminder about the deaths of those Iraqis. The "west" didn't actually want to kill a single one. Unfortunately Saddam decided that he wanted all of the oilfields for himself, and although he was asked to return them to their "rightful" owners, he declined. So we sent troops and said "if you don't get out, we will push you out", but Saddam thought that if he prevaricated for long enough, then the populations would listen to morons like you (and Galloway) and say okay then keep the damn oil.
But we didn't, and we took them back (some eight months after they were taken).
You see, the root cause of every single Iraqi deaths was their glorious leader.
If you can't see that then truly you are blind.
The whole situation in the middle east is the result of western imperialism! The western countries like Britain carved up the middle east after they destroyed the Ottomon empire and drew up the borders of the countries there. Then they armed all these countries with weapons! They want tight control of the whole region because they have vital oil interests in the region and want to protect the profits of the big western oil companies!
Everyone should take part in the coming anti-war demonstration on Saturday September 28th which starts at 1pm at the Embankment, to say no to the endless cycle of war and destruction that they are causing because in this war it will be the ordinary Iraqi people who will suffer and this war will cost billions and billions of pounds!
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Now, you see! Why didn't you just say so. Let's e-mail the coroner's in Iraq, shall we, explaining that they can pre-print the "cause of death" on all death certificates.... no, wait. :rolleyes:
Assuming that what you say is accurate, which it isn't, but let's pretend it is. So what?
We're going to war for oil and to protect capitalist interests. So what?
And there's me thinking that the arabs dominate and control oil production.
Do you actually know what you are talking about?
Rhetorical question, right?
During the last Gulf War of 1991 an American politican said "If Kuwait grew carrots then we would give a damn about the invasion" Meaning that if the Arab will be made to tow the line by America if they go against Americas economic interests that is dominating the Middle East. America also has a massive military base in Suadi Arabia what is it there forif not to enforce American dominance of the oil rich Middle East.
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
The Middle East countries have sovereign power and control of their oil.
The US needs that oil. It does not have enough, even with Alaskan reserves, to support itself.
The Middle East can control that oil, and through OPEC, a cartel which breaks international law, they control the price of that oil. Wait - what did I say? Someone other than the US breaking international law? Oh yes, kiddywinkles, OPEC is illegal. Under UN Laws, cartels for price fixing are not allowed.
But, wait.
They've got one.
Why might that be, boys and girls?
Oh yes - because everyone, the US included, needs their oil so much that it is forced to toe their line.
In 1973, OPEC forced a price hike. No one could really afford it, but they had to pay the oil price. If the US capitalists were the war mongerers that you make them out to be; would they not have gone to war then?
Middle Eastern countries control oil. Israel has no oil. And the US has to tread softly in handling the Middle Eastern problems, so they don't accidentally tread on the tap for their oil.
The US base in the Negev is a training base, providing facilites and space that are not so easy in the US, and also reinforcing the friendship between the countries.
Try reading this;
www.getyourbloodyfactsright.com
Even if your government is invading?
Well I`m not gonna be on the front line am i?
So as long as they don't bring back National Service...
A strange thing to post in a politics forum.
So since you won't be there you don't care what might happen to British (or American, or Iraqi) soldiers, or if any civilians are killed? Goddamn it! How dare they hold a rally about it on your birthday! How insensitive. You should write to Bush to ensure he doesn't begin the invasion on Sep. 28 and spoils your day.
Exactly, I`m glad someone`s finally seeing my point
Hmmm, when did you have your sense of humour bypass then Aladdin?
The country's water treatment and sewage treatment plants were destroyed during the last Gulf War leading to massive outbreaks of water borne diseases. Depleted uranium tipped shells that were used in the war also led to massive outbreaks of radiation related illnesses such as cancers, birth defects and lueakemia. These illnessnes cannot be treated due to sanctions on medical equipment this has been the reason for the massive number of civilian deaths in Iraq since 1990 when sanctions were imposed.
People blame Saddam for everything but it was the American CIA that helped him to power and the West that helped him stay in power and armed Iraq with massive amounts of weapons and gave Iraq the technology to produce chemical and biological weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. And according to Scott Ritter ex UN weapons Inspector Iraq no longer posses chemical or biological weapons.
Another war would be a complete disaster for the Iraqi people. The Iraq people need sanctions lifting and aid agenices sent in so that they can rebuilt their country.
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
We do.
We also know that Saddam want them that way. An educated, wealthy population is a danger to him.
In place until Saddam conform to the ceasefire he brokered, and UN resolutions. It really isn't that hard to get them lifted, if Saddam really wanted to.
You see, now that's funny. Didn't we have a system of rations during WW2?
Oh, and who is it who "runs" the country.
Not the US, that's for sure.
Because he is supposed to be the leader of Iraq, because the whole mess can be laid at his door because of his actions...
No one forced him to invade Kuwait.
Ask yourself - why did he do that?
For oil perhaps? For greed?
An opinion which is contradicted by other weapons inspectors, and defectors leaving Iraq now. Remember Scott hasn't been inside Iraq for 4 years, and isn't privy to intelligence information now coming out of the region.
Agreed.
So why won't Saddam abide by UN resoltions?
~~~~~
I still haven't seen you condemn Saddam or his regime IronCurtain. Does you hatred of the US mean that you automatically support him?
America is responsible for what has happened in Iraq because they helped Saddam to power in the first place and armed Iraq and gave it the technology to produce chemical and biological weapons!
America also seems very hypocritical when have they ever imposed sanctions on Israel for example for invading and occupying The West Bank and Gaza Strip or for failing to comply with UN resolutions! When have they ever called for a regime change in Saudi Arabia one of the most brutal Isamic regimes in the world.
They only have ago at Iraq because Saddam wont tow the line and do as America wants. And they don't have a go at the other rogue states in the Middle East like Israel because Israel doesn't threaten American interests ie its OK for Israel to terrorise the Palestinians, to steal their land and buldoze their homes as long as they don't threaten American interests.
Another war will Iraq will kill, maim and injure tens of thousand of ordinary Iraqis all so America can have its way!:mad:
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Everything you say is true, yet is so utterly pointless.
You seem to believe America is in the wrong because it's not getting involved in every conflict going on. Iraq poses a threat, as most countries will agree, and America wishes to take pre-emptive action. Is that so hard to understand?
Whilst America's treatment of Israel leaves a lot to be desired from the moral point of view, it is exactly what you said: to do with interests. America has greater interest in toppling Saddam than in sorting out the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because Saddam poses the greater threat. Not so hard to follow, is it?
Tough choice.
We won't have to worry about casualties, seeing as we destroyed most of Saddam's kit last time round.
Steal, get a clue mate, get in on the winning side before the government hunts you down like the traitor you are.:rolleyes:
http://www.stopwar.org.uk
Do you have a fucking clue how many people die in Iraq because of Saddam? A war just might stop that.
More importantly, it would eliminate the possibility that this nutcase might destabilize the entire world with WMD (yeah, I know...you think he doesn't have any...fortunately, you don't make the decisions, nor do you have access to any real information).