Saddam Is Dead

[Pathless]

We may pride ourselves on being great alturisits, but all the alturism we provide is neatly packaged within an economics that benefits our corporations (and politicians who are in bed with them) immensely. So it isn't altruism.

The world may actually be capable of feeding itself if left to its own devices. We don't know!

There are not enough resources in America to keep us going the way we are. There is not enough oil, for sure. Re-invent ourselves? I am all for that. Problem is, that takes imagination, and the typical American on the street is sorely lacking in the imagination department right now.

Q, it is quite complicated actually, and you are right in stating that the blame cannot be placed squarely on Dubya or others in his administration. The policies run much, much deeper.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

What pray tell has current western leaders done that would equal the reign of Saddam Huessain? Not a damn thing.

Not true. Our government helped Saddam gain power. Because of this, we equally carry the responsibility for his atrocities. Saddam is one of many in the 20th century history of America. Look to South and Central America. Look at the Phillipines, Hawai'i, and Okinawa, Japan. U.S. colonization did not end on the rocky crags of the west coast of North America. It continues to this day. Is Iran next?

Current western leaders, current occupants of the White House, continue a legacy of economic imperialism that does not equal the legacy of Saddam Hussein--on this you are correct. Instead of equalling Saddam's reign of terror, our government's legacy of terror (and not just those currently in power) exceeds his by far.

Originally Posted by Q

Only problem is, there are enough resources in America for us to keep on going, all by our selves...we'll simply re-invent ourselves...without the rest of the world's influence.

Scary isn't it. I mean 5% of the worlds population, doesn't really need the rest of the world to survive. (not technically, not agriculturally, not economically, not energy wise, not technilogically).

Come on. This is simply not true. Energy wise?? Do you truly believe that we have the capacity to produce, within the borders of this country--without siphoning oil or corn or other sources of fuel for our transportation, from outside of our national borders--enough kilowatts of energy to meet our daily addiction? Your answer is yes??? For how long?

What is scary is that people in our country are arrogant enough to believe that we are so incredibly superior to the rest of the world as to not need them. With an attitude like that, it's no wonder we treat others as if they are expendable.

Yet you are right, we are idiots. We ask nothing in return (as a nation), never have.

We don't ask, but demand a hell of a lot in return. We demand entire nations to become indebted to us and to disregard their own livelihoods so that they can become not paragons of our way of life, but pawns and tools. We sell this life of virtual slavery as "democracy," yet it is everything but democratic.

[Faithfulservant]

I voted for President George W Bush twice... and if that yucky little 22nd amendment that was made with Roosevelt was overturned... Id vote for him again.

[Dor]

Yep did it twice and would do it again.

And anyone who wants to try to compare Bush to someone who gased his own people really needs to stop and think before they type.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Pathless

We may pride ourselves on being great alturisits, but all the alturism we provide is neatly packaged within an economics that benefits our corporations (and politicians who are in bed with them) immensely. So it isn't altruism.

The world may actually be capable of feeding itself if left to its own devices. We don't know!

There are not enough resources in America to keep us going the way we are. There is not enough oil, for sure. Re-invent ourselves? I am all for that. Problem is, that takes imagination, and the typical American on the street is sorely lacking in the imagination department right now.

Q, it is quite complicated actually, and you are right in stating that the blame cannot be placed squarely on Dubya or others in his administration. The policies run much, much deeper.



Not true. Our government helped Saddam gain power. Because of this, we equally carry the responsibility for his atrocities. Saddam is one of many in the 20th century history of America. Look to South and Central America. Look at the Phillipines, Hawai'i, and Okinawa, Japan. U.S. colonization did not end on the rocky crags of the west coast of North America. It continues to this day. Is Iran next?

Current western leaders, current occupants of the White House, continue a legacy of economic imperialism that does not equal the legacy of Saddam Hussein--on this you are correct. Instead of equalling Saddam's reign of terror, our government's legacy of terror (and not just those currently in power) exceeds his by far.



Come on. This is simply not true. Energy wise?? Do you truly believe that we have the capacity to produce, within the borders of this country--without siphoning oil or corn or other sources of fuel for our transportation, from outside of our national borders--enough kilowatts of energy to meet our daily addiction? Your answer is yes??? For how long?

What is scary is that people in our country are arrogant enough to believe that we are so incredibly superior to the rest of the world as to not need them. With an attitude like that, it's no wonder we treat others as if they are expendable.



We don't ask, but demand a hell of a lot in return. We demand entire nations to become indebted to us and to disregard their own livelihoods so that they can become not paragons of our way of life, but pawns and tools. We sell this life of virtual slavery as "democracy," yet it is everything but democratic.

I'm stating facts, not speculation or wishful thinking. The US produces 3/4s of the world's cereal grains. And the government is representitive of the people at large, but not the people themselves.

The world can't apparently feed itself as Africa is quite plain in this regard, and it has some of the most fertile land on earth.

America has 1/3 of the known coal reserves in all the earth, enough to power this country at three times current demand for the next 600 years.

I'm afraid the country that actually set up a Saddam like regime was Great Britian, and it began in the 20s right on through post world war II. You could say we set up the current Iranian government as well, however that is in accurate. Religious radicals set that government up, after kicking out the pro-western leader it had circa 1979.

The US has no colonies, and never did. A protectorate is not the same as a colony, and neither is a territory (of which we have three or four). Hawaii was colonized by the British, not the US. Japan and affiliates were never colonized by the US. They were beaten in a war, that they started.

The US citizen does not think he is superior to anyone. His attitude is that he can do it by himself, because he can depend on no one else. It isn't arrogance, it is lack of trust, and rightfully so as history shows time and time again.

The United States has cancelled more debt of other nations than all the money the rest of the world has today, combined. If we were to collect, the world would go bankrupt 10 times over.

The use of imperialism with economics is an oxymoron. It is either imperialism or Capitalism, it can't be both.

This country does not have a democracy. It has a federal republic, based on democratic principles, with a capitalistic economy.

v/r

Joshua

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

The United States has cancelled more debt of other nations than all the money the rest of the world has today, combined. If we were to collect, the world would go bankrupt 10 times over.

That fact right there points to the big problem, though. The world money system is corrupt. You must realize as well that the "United States" owes huge debts to something, somewhere. I'm not even sure who/what we owe the money to--the "World Bank"? And the World Bank is a corporation, so if the United States owes our national debt to a corporation, that is very, very bad. It means our nation is effectively being run by corporate interests, which would arguably make us... fascists??

Do you think it would be safe to say that our money system is effectively based on nothing? What is it based on? Commerce? What is commerce? The exchange of goods? Isn't the exchange of goods the same thing as an economy, basically? So then is our economy based on our economy? That's a little bit weird. Like an oxymoron.

Sorry I answered all those questions I just posed. I'm sure that Q, you will have your own ideas about that, so by all means, I'd like to hear them.

Originally Posted by Q

The use of imperialism with economics is an oxymoron. It is either imperialism or Capitalism, it can't be both.

I don't follow this. Why can't capitalism be imperialism? If the system is set up to build an empire of indebted economies--perpetual, virtual slaves, if you will--how is capitalist imperialism an impossibility? Just because people are making some amount of money does not make them wealthy. In fact, I will argue again and again that some of the most financially rich people on this planet are greatly impoverished, not understanding that true wealth has very little to do with how much money you have.

Originally Posted by Q

The US citizen does not think he is superior to anyone. His attitude is that he can do it by himself, because he can depend on no one else. It isn't arrogance, it is lack of trust, and rightfully so as history shows time and time again.

This is truly dangerous thinking, and yes, it does seem arrogant to me. Saying, "Well, you know, I can't trust you. You're not dependable. I know how to do it best," certainly smacks of arrogance--to me, in the context of the current United States. Again, it may smell differently to you, Q.

But I wonder... if other countries, oh say Iran--by the way, the circa 1979 leader of Iran, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was certainly sympathetic of Western powers, and maybe not so much of the desires/needs of his own people. Few Iranians, from my understanding, were sad when he left the country, although yes, I think Ayatollah Khomeni and the theocratic government more than dissapointed the democratically-inclined Iranians in the long run--

But I do wonder, if other countries, say Iran--or hey, Iraq-- looked at us and said, "Nope, no thanks. We can't trust you. You've let us down time and time again," what would we think of them? Hmmmm.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Pathless

1. Question: That fact right there points to the big problem, though. The world money system is corrupt. You must realize as well that the "United States" owes huge debts to something, somewhere. I'm not even sure who/what we owe the money to--the "World Bank"? And the World Bank is a corporation, so if the United States owes our national debt to a corporation, that is very, very bad. It means our nation is effectively being run by corporate interests, which would arguably make us... fascists??

2. Question: Do you think it would be safe to say that our money system is effectively based on nothing? What is it based on? Commerce? What is commerce? The exchange of goods? Isn't the exchange of goods the same thing as an economy, basically? So then is our economy based on our economy? That's a little bit weird. Like an oxymoron.

Sorry I answered all those questions I just posed. I'm sure that Q, you will have your own ideas about that, so by all means, I'd like to hear them.



3. Question: I don't follow this. Why can't capitalism be imperialism? If the system is set up to build an empire of indebted economies--perpetual, virtual slaves, if you will--how is capitalist imperialism an impossibility? Just because people are making some amount of money does not make them wealthy. In fact, I will argue again and again that some of the most financially rich people on this planet are greatly impoverished, not understanding that true wealth has very little to do with how much money you have.


4. Question: This is truly dangerous thinking, and yes, it does seem arrogant to me. Saying, "Well, you know, I can't trust you. You're not dependable. I know how to do it best," certainly smacks of arrogance--to me, in the context of the current United States. Again, it may smell differently to you, Q.

5. Qestion: But I wonder... if other countries, oh say Iran--by the way, the circa 1979 leader of Iran, ShahMohammad Reza Pahlavi, was certainly sympathetic of Western powers, and maybe not so much of the desires/needs of his own people. Few Iranians, from my understanding, were sad when he left the country, although yes, I think Ayatollah Khomeni and the theocratic government more than dissapointed the democratically-inclined Iranians in the long run--

6. Question: But I do wonder, if other countries, say Iran--or hey, Iraq-- looked at us and said, "Nope, no thanks. We can't trust you. You've let us down time and time again," what would we think of them? Hmmmm.

These are some excellent points to look at and consider. Thank you for continuing along this vein.

1. Answer: It's called Capitalism. There was only one time that the United States effectively wiped out its debt to others, the consequence of which was the US currency fell so low that we went into a serious depression.
Andrew Jackson was President and the depression caused by his actions of canceling all US debt, double digit inflation and destroying the federal banking system (the Spoils System) caused what was known as "The Great Panic of 1837.

2. Answer: Our monetary system is based on our capacity as a nation to produce (both Gross National Product and Gross Domestic Product). It means the worth of the United States is based on the value each citizen can potentially contribute. Though this is a fluid system unlike the Gold standard, investors are satisfied with the past performance of the UnitedState's ability to produce viable commerce, to consider the nation a low risk for future investment, and so the nation is issued credit (we the people are the co-signor and the commodity the investors are depending upon). Per capita, the United States still out produces all other nations. Over 80% of the US commerce is manufacturing (considered a hard product, vs. services and consular or soft products). In short the American citizen's ability to produce is worth twice his/her weight in pure gold or about $10,000,000.00 per year.

3. Answer: Capitalism cannot be sustained if the consumer goes into such high debt that they can not repay the debt (let alone the interest). Most of the time countries indebted to the US can and do cover their debts under normal conditions and the US in the mean time, re-invests in itself and puts away money for back up (that is to say the US reserves capital as a contingency). Sometimes a country gets so indebted that they will bury themselves, causing their economy to begin to fail. This is not conducive to the better interests of either the US or the country in question, so the US (having reserve Capital to cover the failings of the second party country), will relieve part or all of that country's debt, and then issue a limited line of credit (subject to high scrutiny), in order for that nation to get back on their feet. This also usually requires a change in government behaviors or in some cases a replacement of government representatives of said indebted countries, and for good reason...the previous status quo was failing.

4. Answer: There is no arrogance in someone who refuses to trust others due to being burned time and time again in the past. This country is founded upon the sweat and self reliance of people who said "never again will I succumb to the whiles of people who think I am garbage, and they are elite". It is not up to the United States to show trust worthiness, it is up the rest of the world to do so. And today that sentiment continues...I do not see any other nation where "immigrants" are literally busting ass to get INTO a country in hopes of a better way of life...do you?

5. Answer: Iran's expulsion of the Shah and installation of Khomeini set Iran back 40 years in development. For not only did Iran stagnate for the past 20 of 27 years, but most economic and technological infrastructure was destroyed that set Iran back an additional 20 years. In short, Iran is right at about 1968 in development.

6. Answer: We have a national debt, however that is only part of the picture, and having some debt is an asset (it gives worth and a vested interest by the lender towards the lendee). The rest of the world with a few exceptions has a "hard debt" that they owe the US. If we were to collect, it would still bankrupt the world. If you consider all the industrialized nations on earth which one do you think besides the US/Canada (North America for practical purposes) could survive a pull out of all investments from foreign suitors? Would you be surprised if I told you...Brazil? Not Russia, Not China, not all of Africa, not even Great Britain, France, Germany, or Japan...

My advice would be to research the history of our nation, and not pay so much attention to the media. The media only puts out dish and dirt, because dirty laundry smells and sells...but there is so much more to what we as the collective US do for the world that is never reported (the left hand knows not what the right hand does)...

v/r

Joshua

[Pathless]

Thanks, Q. I'll be thinking about this response and maybe posting in more detail later.

Your answer to question 5 is a bit lacking, I think. What would Iran be like if Mossedegh hadn't been deposed to bring the Shah in in the first place? What would the world be like, for that matter? I don't think Khomeni would have ever come into power, for one thing.

Originally Posted by Q

My advice would be to research the history of our nation, and not pay so much attention to the media. The media only puts out dish and dirt, because dirty laundry smells and sells...but there is so much more to what we as the collective US do for the world that is never reported (the left hand knows not what the right hand does)...

Oh, come on, Q. Do you really think I am sitting here paying a lot of attention to "the media"? Give me some credit, man. I do my research all day long when I can.

But you are right for sure about the left hand not knowing what the right does. Although maybe that is changing now.

I enjoyed your last post and have some new things to think about. Thanks.

Peace,
Pathless

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Thanks, Q. I'll be thinking about this response and maybe posting in more detail later.

Your answer to question 5 is a bit lacking, I think. What would Iran be like if Mossedegh hadn't been deposed to bring the Shah in in the first place? What would the world be like, for that matter? I don't think Khomeni would have ever come into power, for one thing.



Oh, come on, Q. Do you really think I am sitting here paying a lot of attention to "the media"? Give me some credit, man. I do my research all day long when I can.

But you are right for sure about the left hand not knowing what the right does. Although maybe that is changing now.

I enjoyed your last post and have some new things to think about. Thanks.

Peace,
Pathless

Ok, I'm not belittling you. Your statements however could be pulled right off the three major networks, in spirit if not in letter. If you are researching then that is great.

Second of all, when the Shah was disposed, there were riots in Detroit with Iranians living there, who thought they could continue the 'revolution' in America...(mistake). But not a one of them wanted to go back 'home'. Because 'home' was about to take two giant leaps backward. However, we had to live with the aftermath, and learned a great deal about the history of Iran, and the mind set of some religious nuts. (and there are quite a few).


Let's continue...oh and you're most welcome. I too enjoy this.

v/r

Joshua

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Ok, I'm not belittling you. Your statements however could be pulled right off the three major networks, in spirit if not in letter.

Really?? I may have to tune back in, then. Last time I watched the networks they were triumphing about our post 9/11 military actions... which may give you some idea of how long it's been since I've tuned into the "news."

Your second point takes up again with the Shah, but I asked about/pointed you towards Mohammed Mosaddegh. He was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran before the Shah came into power with help from the U.S. and Britain. From the article on wikipedia:

Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq (Mossadeq (help·info)) (Persian: محمد مصدق‎‎ Moḥammad Moṣaddeq, also Mosaddegh or Mossadegh) (19 May 1882 - 5 March 1967) was the democratically elected[1] prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. He was twice appointed to office by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and approved by the vote of parliament [2]. Mossadegh was a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. He was also the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry which was dominated and exploited by the British through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (today known as British Petroleum (BP).

He was later removed from power by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in a CIA orchestrated coup[3], supported and funded by the British and the U.S. governments. The coup was led by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.[4][5], the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, and came to be known as Operation Ajax[4], after its CIA cryptonym, and as the "28 Mordad 1332" coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar. [6][7]

Now to back up just a bit:

Originally Posted by Q

4. Answer: There is no arrogance in someone who refuses to trust others due to being burned time and time again in the past. This country is founded upon the sweat and self reliance of people who said "never again will I succumb to the whiles of people who think I am garbage, and they are elite". It is not up to the United States to show trust worthiness, it is up the rest of the world to do so. And today that sentiment continues...I do not see any other nation where "immigrants" are literally busting ass to get INTO a country in hopes of a better way of life...do you?

Fair enough, in a way. Many other countries as well, are full of people who share that sentiment of "never again will I succumb to the whiles of people who think I am garbage, and they are elite." The point I have been arguing lately is basically that, as capitalists and as Americans, we wish to subject individuals in other countries to our particular brand of "democracy"--although I have noticed that earlier you made a correction:

Originally Posted by Q

This country does not have a democracy. It has a federal republic, based on democratic principles, with a capitalistic economy.

Is that true? I've also heard it called a Representative Democracy. I for one am confused about what kind of country I live in, and its values. Do we value democracy or do we value capitalism? Both? If both, which comes first?

At any rate, Americans often puff themselves up with pride about being independent and free, and get defensive when we can't have things our way. I find it disturbingly ironic that we also seem unable to value other peoples'/nations' right to be independent and free--unless of course, they can contort their independence and freedom into the jigsaw puzzle of the global economics of capitalism. And in that puzzle, western powers have some of the biggest pieces.

That kind of system doesn't seem respectful, honest, democratic, or moral to me.

My thoughts...

--P

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Really?? I may have to tune back in, then. Last time I watched the networks they were triumphing about our post 9/11 military actions... which may give you some idea of how long it's been since I've tuned into the "news."

Your second point takes up again with the Shah, but I asked about/pointed you towards Mohammed Mosaddegh. He was the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran before the Shah came into power with help from the U.S. and Britain. From the article on wikipedia:

Dr. Mohammed Mosaddeq (Mossadeq (help·info)) (Persian: محمد مصدق‎‎ Moḥammad Moṣaddeq, also Mosaddegh or Mossadegh) (19 May 1882 - 5 March 1967) was the democratically elected[1] prime minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953. He was twice appointed to office by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and approved by the vote of parliament [2]. Mossadegh was a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. He was also the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry which was dominated and exploited by the British through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (today known as British Petroleum (BP).

He was later removed from power by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in a CIA orchestrated coup[3], supported and funded by the British and the U.S. governments. The coup was led by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.[4][5], the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, and came to be known as Operation Ajax[4], after its CIA cryptonym, and as the "28 Mordad 1332" coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar. [6][7]

Now to back up just a bit:



Fair enough, in a way. Many other countries as well, are full of people who share that sentiment of "never again will I succumb to the whiles of people who think I am garbage, and they are elite." The point I have been arguing lately is basically that, as capitalists and as Americans, we wish to subject individuals in other countries to our particular brand of "democracy"--although I have noticed that earlier you made a correction:



Is that true? I've also heard it called a Representative Democracy. I for one am confused about what kind of country I live in, and its values. Do we value democracy or do we value capitalism? Both? If both, which comes first?

At any rate, Americans often puff themselves up with pride about being independent and free, and get defensive when we can't have things our way. I find it disturbingly ironic that we also seem unable to value other peoples'/nations' right to be independent and free--unless of course, they can contort their independence and freedom into the jigsaw puzzle of the global economics of capitalism. And in that puzzle, western powers have some of the biggest pieces.

That kind of system doesn't seem respectful, honest, democratic, or moral to me.

My thoughts...

--P

Ok, first off I never made a "correction". I stated quite clearly that this is a federal republic. That is off the table.

Second, the major three have been hammering our being in Iraq since the beginning. Your links are a handful that has nothing to do with the daily deluge of Washington DC's news.

Third, the "prime minister of Iraq" circa 1953 is it? was nothing American. It was all Britain.

Pathless, I thought you wanted to discuss ...things.

I can't help but you get angry and angrier everytime you look at posts that do not go your way. I think we are concluded here.

v/r

Joshua

[wil]

We invaded Iraq not to depose a leader but supposedly because of WMDs and UN violations however US and Isreal have more UN violations than Iraq. UN is interesting, we despise it, unless we wish to use that dog on others.

Saddam was supported by the US in its war against Iran which we encouraged due to the hostage crisis when our shaw was taken out. Our foriegn policy is simple...it blows like the flag in the wind...our enemy's enemy is our friend, period, no matter how evil he is. And Saddam was our friend, hence the pictures of Rumsfeld shaking his hand and smiling.

We basically enticed him into Kuwait, and then went after him. Then we promised to help the Shiites overthrow him and then backed off and let him slaughter them. During the first war our order of targets was after military installations was the sewage and water treatment plants and infrastructure, and then the sanctions caused them not to be able to buy the parts to repair these...hundreds of thousands died due to this...those are on our shoulders, as well as the Shiites that were lost. The citizen count in the current war is over 600,000 (currently undisputed as it is the same organization and same methods employed by our gov't estimates).

Our administration said it would cost 50 billion for the war. Other estimates were 80 billion, the admin said impossible, they didn't know what they were talking about. We are now at half a trillion and it is estimated that we will be at two trillion before all the benefits are paid out to the wounded and disabled.

Anyone know what a trillion dollars is? Put a MILLION dollars on the table every day since Jesus was born...EVERY DAY a MILLION...WE AIN'T THERE YET! Keep putting them on the table for another 60 years!! And we are spending 2 Trillion in a few short years....FOR WHAT? Surely not to revenge 911, as they came from Saudi Arabia and were trained in Afganistan...didn't set foot in Iraq!!

Take a look and compare when 'victory' was declared in the Vietnam war...the death toll of Americans prior to 'Victory' and afterwords...and compare to Iraq....now that is scary.

Saddam wasn't any saint, doh! But why did we choose his country to go after...when it comes to malicious dictators and danger he was like number 6 on the list...

It was a mistake...a bad one. It diverted our war on terror, it split our efforts and has left Osama to be free, and put us from two steps forward to three steps back in Afganistan...yes we finished the pipeline so Conoco's oil may flow...but all the poppy fields are back in full production, and the Taliban is retaking control...oops. And now that we killed our Dog that kept Iran at bay...guess who has started barking again!!

Oh and Saudi Arabia...the country that grew 80% of the terrorists and terrorist leaders...90% of the 911 bombers...they are in full swing...our allies..and the schools are still spewing hate and preparing the next generation of US haters...

We are so smart it is absolutely amazing. I'm so dumb but not dumb enough...to understand our foriegn policy.

oh...uh...our pentagon doesn't believe that was Saddam that gassed the kurds...they think it was Iran...oops.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

...I do not see any other nation where "immigrants" are literally busting ass to get INTO a country in hopes of a better way of life...do you?

Well I live in the UK and I think I can confidently say "Yes, the UK for one. And probably other Western European countries; but definitely the UK."

Taking into account the UK is a small island (compared to the US):

"Immigration is now on an unprecedented scale. The Asians from East Africa who arrived in the mid 1970s amounted to 27,000. We are now taking more than 10 times that number every year. Indeed, net foreign immigration reached 292,000 in 2005 (of which just 11,000 was accounted for by the net rise in asylum claimants).

According to Government projections, immigration will result in an increase in the population of the UK of 6 million in the 27 years from 2004 that is 6 times the population of Birmingham. Immigration (immigrants and their descendants) will now account for 83% of future population growth in the UK.

Legal immigration at the present projected rate will lead to a requirement of about 1.5 million houses in the period 2003 – 2026. England is now nearly twice as crowded as Germany, four times France and twelve times the US.

The impact is very substantial. Over the next twenty years, one in three new households will be down to immigration."

- taken from MWUK - Outline of the Problem
("an independent and non-political body")

s.

[17th Angel]

Saddam got off pretty light eh? I was watching a show on the crime channel last night about these eastern cultures... This pakistani(?) sexually abused 100 stray runaway boys then killed them, dissolved their bodies in acid and put them in a nearby river.... Would have never got him, he confessed to the crimes...

In court... His punishment.... Death by strangulation... Then, cut into 100 bits... And placed in acid....

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Ok, first off I never made a "correction". I stated quite clearly that this is a federal republic. That is off the table.

My bad, I chose the wrong word.

Originally Posted by Q

Pathless, I thought you wanted to discuss ...things.

I can't help but you get angry and angrier everytime you look at posts that do not go your way. I think we are concluded here.

That's odd, I wasn't feeling angry when I wrote that last post. I didn't intend it to come across as an angry post. Sorry you got that from it.

I thought we were discussing things in a way that was starting to be respectful. Now you want to stop?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Pathless

My bad, I chose the wrong word.



That's odd, I wasn't feeling angry when I wrote that last post. I didn't intend it to come across as an angry post. Sorry you got that from it.

I thought we were discussing things in a way that was starting to be respectful. Now you want to stop?

No, by all means let's keep working on this one. I suspect wil wishes to join in too.

And I didn't know immigrants are trying to get into GB, so that was new to me, then I did some checking, and guess what I found? US, GB, Australia and Canada seem to be the immigration hot spots...wonder why...