FINALLY INDEPENDENT

[Red Gunner]

two rocks which have now turned out to be very valuable (oil) What about WW2 and Korea??

Who cares about the past? What about nowadays? America pulled UK into great wars, haven't they? And made UK very lovable abroad, eh?

Lets dissect your points - only the ignorant ignore the past and dismiss it just as easily.
Nowadays America is still the country Britain would look to in a time of crisis, NOT Europe. Which ''wars'' did America pull Britain into?? Iraq is the only war which Britain needlessly got involved in - so which other ones are you on about??
You seem to think Britain was popular before Iraq - well i have news for you - it wasnt.

Britain was the greatest country in the world and wasn't popular for that in the past. Nowadays, it has lost its power and sometimes punches above it weight. I can't believe believe people in this country are considering Sharia law. Don't call me a bigot because I am a Muslim. I don't care if the law is adopted here or not. But imagine Muslims considering adopting Christian laws, silly ain't it? Well, thats what people are doing here. Britain should show more spine, throw political correctness out of the window and rely on themselves only; in oder to restore its greatness.

[GoonerJim]

right....what has that to do with the points in posted?

[Red Gunner]

right....what has that to do with the points in posted?

It tells you why Britain wasn't popular in the past and how it should restore its greatness. Therefore putting the discussion into a conclusion.

[GoonerJim]

No it hasnt - you have answered one portion of my counter argument. there are at least 3/4 other points you still havent answered.

[Red Gunner]

No it hasnt - you have answered one portion of my counter argument. there are at least 3/4 other points you still havent answered.

I'll answer them, here you go:

Nowadays America is still the country Britain would look to in a time of crisis, NOT Europe. Which ''wars'' did America pull Britain into??

Afghanistan

Iraq is the only war which Britain needlessly got involved in - so which other ones are you on about??

Same question, same answer: Afghanistan. If they go to Iran, I am sure that UK will follow as well

You seem to think Britain was popular before Iraq - well i have news for you - it wasnt.

Point covered in my last post

Britain was the greatest country in the world and wasn't popular for that in the past. Nowadays, it has lost its power and sometimes punches above it weight. I can't believe believe people in this country are considering Sharia law. Don't call me a bigot because I am a Muslim. I don't care if the law is adopted here or not. But imagine Muslims considering adopting Christian laws, silly ain't it? Well, thats what people are doing here. Britain should show more spine, throw political correctness out of the window and rely on themselves only; in oder to restore its greatness.

[GoonerJim]

Afghanistan was a UN/NATO sanctioned LEGAL war otherwise most NATO members would not have some sort of presence there so im sorry to be blunt but your talking out of your arse and as such points one and two of your response are completely false.

[RaM]

Khalid do you honestly think Britain should rely only on its own resources?

Having an alliance is not being spineless, it is a tactical way of keeping itself and its people safe. I know if I were in such a position I'd want America as my ally. Were Britain invaded in the morning I'd be willing to bet the Americans would be amongst the first there.

As for the point about the Muslim laws, then I have to say that if such a thing were to come to pass it would certainly change how I look at the country and its people. No religion should ever have any power over a state.

only the ignorant ignore the past and dismiss it just as easily.

Very true.


And now...back to being a porn/comedic (and a bit of football) forum.

[Drone]

As for the point about the Muslim laws, then I have to say that if such a thing were to come to pass it would certainly change how I look at the country and its people. No religion should ever have any power over a state.

Well said RaM.
Khalid we were christians before any other nation in Europe was, when we fight against Roman Empire we were christians, than after we were divided into Roman Christians and Bizantin Christians, than After 500 years of Otoman Empire ocupation we changed our religion into muslim, so for my nation religion is not such important as law and state (So we never could safe our religion, but we did safe the language and a bit of traditions/Culture). We use to learn Serbian and Rusian in the School, but gues what i never learned Russian but i was forced to speak Serbian in the streats and in the School. But there was no one to make me learn English, German, French, Italian Languages and Culture, specially English and American to whom i had speciall sympathy since i was a liattle kid.

[Red Gunner]

Afghanistan was a UN/NATO sanctioned LEGAL war otherwise most NATO members would not have some sort of presence there so im sorry to be blunt but your talking out of your arse and as such points one and two of your response are completely false.

Read newspapers much?

Khalid do you honestly think Britain should rely only on its own resources?

Russia do and Britain used to in the past. Anyway, I didn't say that it should rely on its own resources, I said it should rely on themselves.

[GoonerJim]

Afghanistan was a UN/NATO sanctioned LEGAL war otherwise most NATO members would not have some sort of presence there so im sorry to be blunt but your talking out of your arse and as such points one and two of your response are completely false.

Read newspapers much?

.

Yes i do hence why i said ''some sort of presence'' And you have still ignored the fact it is a legally authorised mission.

I suggest you stop being selective in what you choose to read of my posts.

[Red Gunner]

Afghanistan was a UN/NATO sanctioned LEGAL war otherwise most NATO members would not have some sort of presence there so im sorry to be blunt but your talking out of your arse and as such points one and two of your response are completely false.

Read newspapers much?

.

Yes i do hence why i said ''some sort of presence'' And you have still ignored the fact it is a legally authorised mission.

I suggest you stop being selective in what you choose to read of my posts.

Legal or not. Many soldiers are stuck there for no reason. Anyway who the hell are UN and NATO to decide what is legal what is not. Common sense prevails over these organizations who think they are gods of these world.

[GoonerJim]

Afghanistan was a UN/NATO sanctioned LEGAL war otherwise most NATO members would not have some sort of presence there so im sorry to be blunt but your talking out of your arse and as such points one and two of your response are completely false.

Read newspapers much?

.

Yes i do hence why i said ''some sort of presence'' And you have still ignored the fact it is a legally authorised mission.

I suggest you stop being selective in what you choose to read of my posts.

Legal or not. Many soldiers are stuck there for no reason. Anyway who the hell are UN and NATO to decide what is legal what is not. Common sense prevails over these organizations who think they are gods of these world.

Ah theres that ignorance again - The UN was established by the allies post WW2 as a body to regulate international law and solve international dispute by either dip;lomatic or other means - Every recognised country on the Planet is a member of the UN. NATO is a common defence bloc consisting of the majority of western nation states. If one is attacked it is deemed an attack on all states.
NATO do not think they are gods of the world. They act to protect the security of their members.

There were no anti war protests over Afghanistan in fact every major party supports the on going military effort there as does the vast majority of public opinion.

''Legal or not. Many soldiers are stuck there for no reason''

No they are there to establish a proper state and prevent the resurgence of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in that country i would call that sufficient reason enough.

[Red Gunner]

Afghanistan was a UN/NATO sanctioned LEGAL war otherwise most NATO members would not have some sort of presence there so im sorry to be blunt but your talking out of your arse and as such points one and two of your response are completely false.

Read newspapers much?

.

Yes i do hence why i said ''some sort of presence'' And you have still ignored the fact it is a legally authorised mission.

I suggest you stop being selective in what you choose to read of my posts.

Legal or not. Many soldiers are stuck there for no reason. Anyway who the hell are UN and NATO to decide what is legal what is not. Common sense prevails over these organizations who think they are gods of these world.

Ah theres that ignorance again - The UN was established by the allies post WW2 as a body to regulate international law and solve international dispute by either dip;lomatic or other means - Every recognised country on the Planet is a member of the UN. NATO is a common defence bloc consisting of the majority of western nation states. If one is attacked it is deemed an attack on all states.
NATO do not think they are gods of the world. They act to protect the security of their members.

There were no anti war protests over Afghanistan in fact every major party supports the on going military effort there as does the vast majority of public opinion.

''Legal or not. Many soldiers are stuck there for no reason''

No they are there to establish a proper state and prevent the resurgence of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in that country i would call that sufficient reason enough.

Who represents the nations in UN? The people of the nation, nope. Corrupt, sleazy presidents and prime-ministers who care about their pockets more than the interest of people. I rate NATO like I rate Al-Qaeda. Both care for their interests only and don't want to negotiate.

[GoonerJim]

[quote="khalid_redWho represents the nations in UN? The people of the nation, nope. Corrupt, sleazy presidents and prime-ministers who care about their pockets more than the interest of people. I rate NATO like I rate Al-Qaeda. Both care for their interests only and don't want to negotiate.[/quote]

Nope Ambassadors represent their nations. And the fact you compare NATO to Al-Qaeda is laughable!
btw NATO arent there to negotiate - they are there to act.

[Red Gunner]

Who represents the nations in UN? The people of the nation, nope. Corrupt, sleazy presidents and prime-ministers who care about their pockets more than the interest of people. I rate NATO like I rate Al-Qaeda. Both care for their interests only and don't want to negotiate.

Nope Ambassadors represent their nations. And the fact you compare NATO to Al-Qaeda is laughable!
btw NATO arent there to negotiate - they are there to act.

This argument is too deep, Jim. Out of interest, do you believe that Global Warming is influenced by people?