Are you ready for Salmond's St. Andrew's day betrayal?
- Thread starter Peter Dow
- Start date
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
Rightly so. I too am one of the many people who supported the liberation of Iraq and the removal the Saddam fascist outlaw regime and the establishment of a democratic Iraq with peace and justice for all Iraqis and Saddam brought to justice.
Many other people supported and still support the terrorist wrecking of the new Iraq and the sectarian death squads, often proxies of neighbouring regimes, leading to most of the deaths of Iraqis and the deaths of our military and civilian workers in the new Iraq.
These others support that evil carnage caused by those they cheer on as "the resistance" and those others have puppets who march under a "Stop the War" banner whilst perversely being manipulated to keep the war going and ensure that many innocent Iraqis die.
These others then have the cheek to call the change of regime from a fascist state to a nation state "an illegal war" when it was no such thing since fascist states and outlaw regimes have no protection under international law, the United Nations Charter, nor under any international law, being as such fascist outlaw regimes are the primary violators of international law and order in the first place.
There is probably no Scottish nor British man responsible for more deaths of Iraqis than the old fool featured in this video, Menzies Campbell who has had a lot of air time for his ridiculous "regime change is illegal under international law" nonsense.
Now surrounding Iraq are evil regimes which enslave their country's own people as once Saddam enslaved Iraq's - evil regimes like Iran and Saudi Arabia, who fear the rise of a successful democratic Iraq which sets a positive example for Iranians and Arabs to start questioning their own lack of democracy and thinking of a regime change of their own.
So these fearful regimes wanting to sicken people of the whole idea of "regime change" have done everything they can get away with to sabotage the new Iraq and they have been helped by their stooges and puppets in western opposition parties such as the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party.
Here are a couple of spoof leaflets which I made up to satirise the SNP's foreign policy rubbish.
So if you want to celebrate all the deaths they have caused by giving succour to the enemy then just vote Lib Dem or SNP in the coming general election.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Oh dear. Put that crack pipe down you loony.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
And yet you advocate getting rid of the queen because of what tony blair did in the name of the war on terror 
please explain how a war is bad when the queen has anything, however superficial, remotely to do with it and good when condoleeza rice is involved in it
please explain how a war is bad when the queen has anything, however superficial, remotely to do with it and good when condoleeza rice is involved in itSo, you're against the brutality of the queens state, except when that brutality is directed at the citizens of another country, in which case it's fine as long as you don't agree with how that coutry is run? That is some confused thinking.
Iraq is no more democratic than it was under suddam, and it's a lot more dangerous. 100,000's have been killed.
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
wtf? why should the queen be on trial in the hague? I sometimes think it would be better if she had more powers, not less
What part of
didn't you understand?
The Queen needs to be stopped from killing so many innocent people when she rubber-stamps the terrorist states she is head of state of.
A recent example, was the Australian bush fires which killed 200 or so people, many because the Queen's Australian state allowed councils to terrorise people to stop them cutting the bush back around their homes to create fire breaks.
Now we need a head of state who can responsibly use the powers a head of state has to stop the state terrorising people and getting innocent people killed.
It would be much worse, not better, if the Queen used the powers of head of state more actively.
If the Queen tries to intervene in a more active way, because she is totally stupid and incompetent, she will do and say the wrong thing about 50% of the time and would most likely make things much worse.
We need a clever, competent person elected as president using the powers of head of state. You should NEVER trust a stupid person to do a very difficult job it takes a clever person to do.
Now one way to stop the Queen and her family from being head of state is to put them on trial for all the deaths they have caused.
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
I advocate getting rid of the Queen for many reasons but monarchy is ALWAYS wrong and ALWAYS should be done away with and a kingdom should ALWAYS change to become a republic.
It does not change the wrongness of monarchy if one prime minister does something bad or does something good. Monarchy is always a very bad way to choose a head of state.
Monarchy is wrong like having a drunk person in charge of a loaded gun is wrong. It is a very dangerous situation for all concerned.
I never said that.
I would say that the Queen is a stupid person who should be allowed to be in charge of wiping her own arse and that is about it. Monarchy gives you stupid people as heads of state and that is very bad. Bad heads of state, like the Queen, make fighting a war very difficult.
I would say that Condoleezza Rice is a clever person who should be allowed to be head of state by being elected as president, or if she cannot be elected president she should be an advisor to the president. A good president makes fighting a war a lot easier.
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
You are the one who is confused.
The free world has enemies to fight and I think the best way for us Britons, Scots, English, Welsh & Northern Irish to fight any war is to remove the Queen, the monarchy, the Kingdom and have presidents and republics instead, first of all. Have a republican revolution at home first so we are in better shape to fight all our wars.
Going to Iraq without removing the Queen is not how I would fight the war.
Our American allies have asked for our help in Iraq and Afghanistan and we should help them of course.
Therefore when we Britons go to war in a good cause at the side of our good Allies, the Americans, I say - "well good that we are trying to help - but we could help a lot more by removing the Queen and getting a good president first".
Our war was directed against Saddam Hussein and we killed very few civilians by mistake.
Most of the Iraqi civilians have been brutally killed by terrorists supported by the enemy and their puppets, the Lib Dems and the SNP.
Iraq is more democratic now, there are elections and a lot more political freedom although it is a country which is at war and under siege from its and our enemies but it is those enemies who are terrorising the Iraqis to try to take away their new democracy.
You ought to blame the enemy and those who dance to the enemy's tune such as the Lib Dem and SNP fools.
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
I don't follow you.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
Our "American Allies" are responsible for keeping Saddam in power so long and also for funding what later became Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Why compound those mistakes by starting wars no one has a cat in hell's chance of "winning" ?
Iraq in particular clearly wasn't ever seriously intended to be "won".
Why compound those mistakes by starting wars no one has a cat in hell's chance of "winning" ?
Iraq in particular clearly wasn't ever seriously intended to be "won".
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
I have never suggested that the Queen should do what she does differently. That is a ridiculous suggestion.
I am republican. I want no Queen and no King.
As I have explained, the laws the Queen gives royal assent, along with the ministers judge she appoints, cause a crisis of death and disaster for the people.
This constitution we have just now is a rotten constitution from hell and we would be better off without it.
"The freedom denied to the Scots by this Queen. The Constitution from Hell!"
I don't WANT the Queen to sit there being the Queen refusing to give royal assent to some laws but giving assent to other laws.
I want the Queen, her family and every monarch to go, to leave the country or to go into exile or to be put on trial or to be imprisoned or to be given the death penalty.
I want the end of the kingdom altogether - no more United Kingdom - UK gone, finished, ended.
So yes we will need new republican constitutions to replace the rotten UK constitution from hell.
It will be good thing if the constitution from hell goes to hell where it belongs.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Have you looked up "satire" in the dictionary?
We shouldn't be fighting any wars. Unless we came under direct attack.
Whether the queen is head of state is completely irrelevant to the war. It's a non-issue.
Good allies? Fuck that - The USA is the most aggressive, imperialist state on this earth. They didn't need our help and we shouldn't've given them it.
This is just a lie. The war (well, invasion) was carried out for economic reasons. And 100,000's is not "very few".
We knew about the situation in iraq with the shias and sunnis before we went in. Our government is responsible for the power vacuum which has led to the sectarian violence there. Again, calling anyone opposed to your country/state "terrorists" is a classic imperialist position.
Is it fuck more democratic. Those elections mean fuck all and normal people in iraq are as disenfrachised as they've ever been.
They're not my enemy.
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
Many mistakes have been made.
I have an excellent change of winning our wars if the people would put me in charge of fighting them.
Once we have kicked the monarchy out, it should be an easy win for freedom and democracy.
I would happily serve as president of a Scottish republic or as a strategic advisor to NATO to help us win our wars.
However, neither the Scots nor NATO want to employ me in that role but I am doing my best to help anyway.
Nothing the UK does is serious because the Queen is not a serious head of state and a kingdom is not a serious way of organising a state.
I think we should get serious about the process of government by ending the kingdom first as a matter of priority.
It is not just wars we are not serious about - it is education, health and other services for the people which could be done better by a republic instead of a kingdom.
Also I do not think we started the war. Saddam started things off by invading Kuwait. Al Qaeda started the war with the west long before the "9/11" attacks on America.
There is a lot of oil money sloshing around in the Middle East and the very rich monarchs and dictators are going to spend some of it to wage war on us, whether we like it or not.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Well, it certainly worked in the US.
Oh, hold on...
You see, you're confusing the symptom with the disease.
Peter Dow
Standard Bearer
By that logic, you would have opposed Churchill's declaration of war against Nazi Germany for Hitler's invasion of Poland.
Hitler killed all the people in WW2 because we didn't go to war on him SOON ENOUGH!
Nonsense. The war is prosecuted by Her Majesty's Government and by forces of the crown.
If we get rid of the monarchy, government and get some better generals, the war would be easier to win.
American supported freedom and democracy as advocated by Condoleezza Rice is not "imperialism".
I hope we have moved on from the rival East/West empires of the cold war.
Well when Saddam invades or attacks a country and harms the economy of that country, there is an economic dimension to it.
If the Iraq war was a "war for oil" then the second world war was a "war for German and Japanese engineering excellence". They weren't wars for oil or engineers but for freedom and democracy.
We didn't kill them. They were killed by the enemy who the Lib Dems and SNP excuse and encourage.
It was not vacuum but the Iraqi state is initially weak and that weakness has been exploited by neighbouring states to try to empire build inside Iraq.
It has been a political education task to explain to our stupid leaders (again blame the Queen for them) that the Iranian, Saudi, Syrian, Egyptian etc states have been behind the terrorism in Iraq and they need to be confronted over it.
I am calling those terrorising the people of Iraq "terrorists" because that is what they are, state sponsored terrorists very often.
Well I can see you are confessing that you oppose free elections in the dictatorships of the world which you support.
That's right. You have sided with the monarchs and dictatorships of the Middle East who are murdering innocent people in their hundreds of thousands.
The enemies of freedom and democracy are not your enemy but you are the enemy of every person who wants to live in freedom.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
I don't follow you.
Correction, no one follows you.
I can't believe the loon keeps coming back with more dribble.
I'm pondering whether to reply again.
honestly mate iv'e given up, he's off his tits....still entertaining to watch though
honestly mate iv'e given up, he's off his tits....still entertaining to watch though
I wanted to make up for just cussing him out at the beggining of the thread, by attempting a rational debate. Life is too short.
I dont think Peter does rational
Truedat. In principle I am anti-monarchist as well, but ffs.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Any rational person is republican. It does not, however, follow that every republican is rational.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Ow, my ribs. Chortle, chortle *deadpan*.
Truedat, also.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I don't follow you.
you blame the dutch queen for srebrenica saying that if the dutch had had a president then the massacre wouldn't have happened.
you could just as easily blame the french lack of a queen for the rwanda genocide, since their "peacekeeping role" was even less unpartisan ...
