egafd.com

He does indeed, seem a little dumb. His IQ cannot be more than 110 surely?

Fighting Al Queda is a good thing, as was invading Iraq -regardless of WMD's- I just think he's doing it for the wrong reasons. (for the mighty $ rather than moral or humanitarian reasons).

As for Blair, I think he's more intelligent than that. To the east we have religious fanatics called Muslims who are becoming troublesome all over the globe. To the west we have a rising evangelist movement in America which will cause more bad than good. Secular Europe on the other hand, are letting mass migrations of Muslims in from the east which makes terrorist acts in these countries easier, whilst doing nothing to stop the USA's goal of 'empire'. Blair has basically chosen sides.

What needs to happen is for Europe to pull together and firstly stop mass migration into Europe and then tell America to back down. If the whole of Europe pulled in the same direction, America would have to listen.

[quote]Yes, that Adolf Hitler invaded nearly every country in Europe for all the wrong reasons, but it was good thing all the same.....logic...?[/quote]

Give me a break Keith. If you're going to compare Hitler's invasion of Europe with the US and UK invasion of Iraq, then you've also got to compare the 'downfall of Hitler' compared to the 'downfall of Saddam'......logic?

You can question the war and question the motives, but please don't say Hitler had to be stopped where as Saddam should have been free to persecute and murder. But Hitler conquered other nations right? Well so did Saddam....well he tried anyway. Also Slobodan Milosevic would seem to have been discriminated against if we'd left Saddam alone. Persecuting, genocidal, bigoted murderers seem to describe all three, wouldn't you agree?

[quote]My point is, if you really think there is such a thing as a humanitarian war then you need to spend a long weekend in Iraq sometime....[/quote]

Ha, and what makes you think I know nothing of war Keith? Back on topic, most of the killing in Iraq is Shia against Sunni -and vice versa- and I'll agree that Saddam kept this in check.....but only with persecution and murder. He was well known to threaten the death of the families of his enemies to keep people in line which worked much better than threatening their own lives. No ones going to do something that will 'directly' endanger your wife and children, correct? So if there was peace in Iraq, it was a 'wrong' peace.

As for humanitarian wars.......well then the 1st and 2nd world wars were unjust also, if we're using your logic.

[quote]There is no 'mass migration' into Europe. Most people in non-EU countries simply can't come here in the first place. The mass-migration is coming from within the EU to support our ?4 an hour economy.[/quote]

No mass migration? Hmmm, maybe the word 'mass' was a little harsh, I have to agree, but taking England -which has colonial migrations- aside, I'd guess there are more Muslims in Germany, Denmark, France, Holland, Belgium, Italy Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia and Spain than there was 10 years ago, and more then than 20 years ago, and so on. I'm guessing percentage increases too, not just increases in line with natural population growth.

So you don't agree that Europe should take more of a stand against both Muslim and US agendas?

[quote]I was substituting the words Adolf Hitler to replace the words Saddam Hussein in a sentence you wrote to show what nonsense you were talking about right and wrong reasons.[/quote]

I also substituted ousting Hitler with ousting Saddam, and even Milosevic to show what nonsense (nonsensical to the same extent I was in your opinion) you were talking. What I meant by 'wrong reasons' is plain to see (I hoped!) The wrong reasons were the oil you speak about! The 'right' reasons would have been to stop a dictator who commanded genocide!

My thinking is that the 'ousting' of Saddam was just, but the real motivation (oil) makes the 'motivation' behind the ousting unjust. You also skirted my retort about the morality of WW2 and the Yugoslav war, and whether it was right Saddam should be left to do what Hitler and Milosevic weren't allowed?

[quote]They've got democracy in Iraq now and the place is a war zone too. Looks like a balls-up to be honest.[/quote]

Were the first democracies of the west any more peaceful in the first few years? Maybe in 500 years time we may look at Iraq and say the transition went smoothly? Who knows? You cannot really judge Iraq's 6 month old democracy and compare it to ours. That's like poking fun at a 9 month old baby for not knowing who wrote the Crito, and the principles Socretes died for.

[quote]Oh right so by 'mass-migration' you mean Muslims....the penny drops.... [/quote]

Erm, yes Keith. The penny has only just dropped for you? My you are slow (joking), as I'm sure I stated this directly in my 2nd post on this thread. Lets have a look........ah yes, here it is....

Sam Slater wrote:

[quote]......are letting mass migrations of Muslims in from the east.......[/quote]

Maybe you're just tired?

[quote]Look, if you want to say Muslim just say Muslim and if you happen not to like them or think there are too many in the EU why don't you just say so.[/quote]

See above, I 'did' say Muslim, and I 'did insinuate on there being too many within the EU. Shocked? Since my fear for 'too many Muslims' within the EU isn't racially motivated then I've no fear of guilt in stating my fears on a public forum, and to even argue in favour!

Talking of racism and insinuations........well, were you Keith? Using the old 'fear factor' to close this argument in your favour? We don't see eye to eye on occasion, but I didn't think you'd stoop so low as insinuating I'm racist to win a debate.

The REAL reason about my fear of too many Muslims in the EU -if you didn't get it from my previous posts- was the fact that Europe is more secular than the near Middle East, and the USA. I'm hoping for an even more secular Europe for the future, and migration of deeply religious people into Europe threatens that in the long run. (I don't care what religion, just the fanaticism of their religion - which in this instance happens to be Islam) If we had migrating evangelical Christians coming from the USA, I'd be just as fearful.

[quote]Yes by mass-migration I thought you meant a lot of Polish plumbers and Hungarian dentists but you meant Muslims but didn't say so at first,[/quote]

Keith, I 'did' say it first, and I told you I 'did', and quoted myself to prove it in my last post!........ Go get yourself some glasses or something! !laugh!

For the record it's THIS post which happens to be the first post you replied to. I stated Muslims quite clearly on the third line of the second paragraph, so I don't know where you got 'Polish workers' from!

[quote]Why do you object to Muslims in the EU exactly?[/quote]

I though I already explained that in my previous threads Keith? To reiterate: I'd prefer Europe to stay -and even become more of- a secular continent. It doesn't matter whether they are evangelical Catholics, Mormons or Muslims. I only mention Muslims because this is the main religion that's 'on the rise'.

[quote]You don't explain your fear of Islam? Why not admit to having a prejudice, everybody has them.[/quote]

Prejudice, as in 'pre judgement'? 'Unfair judgement'? Since I've been living in the middle of a large Muslim community since 84, I don't think I'm pre-judging Islam. The middle school I belonged to was 70% Muslim, and thus was my social network. I know more about Christian scripture than Islamic scripture, but I know more about 'Islamic life' than 'Christian life' due to my parents being pretty much atheistic, the area in which I grew up, and the friends I socialised with.

I would never make such a judgement on Buddhism as I know next to nothing about it. I try not to make blind assumptions or prejudicial remarks.

[quote]Please explain why that view doesn't employ a generalisiation, isn't badly informed and isn't intolerant?[/quote]

I most definitely am generalising Keith, and I make no apologies. You see, since I want Europe to become more secular, that means all 'fanatically' religious people are a danger to that. Since I'm treating fanatical Muslims and fanatical Christians as the same, I have to generalise. I cannot befriend every Muslim and Christian in the world and give my opinion on each individual. We all generalise to some degree for convenience. Some generalisations are fair while others should be avoided. My generalisation covered 2 religions and umpteen races. I had no choice but to generalise.

At the moment, there's no significant Christian/Mormon/Buddhist/Hindu migration into Europe, only a Muslim one. Since I' talking about Europe being more secular, the biggest threats are Muslim immigrants who are obviously religious, and wouldn't contribute to Europe's secularity.

For the record again so you don't reiterate the same questions.

1. I'd prefer a more secular EU.
2. Migration of religious people in the EU threatens secularity.
3. That's 'any' religous migration into the EU remember?
4. The only significant 'religious migration' at the moment is/has been Muslim.

[quote]I think the reason why a lot of European countires have a Muslim population is because they had colonial and imperial interests in the past and have had to accommodate some of the people they spent hundreds of years in some cases exploiting and treating like shit.[/quote]

In the 50's and 60's I'd have agreed with you strongly. Not now though.

[quote]Yes Saddam was a dictator, installed and maintained by the USA. The USA (and the former USSR) have a policy of supporting very very unpleasant people around the world to do their dirty work for them, in this case making sure that the Iranaians stayed in Iran. The first gulf war was fought to save Kuwait (not a democaracy) and Saudi Arabia (a monarchistic theocracy) from being invaded and then the Iraqi people had to put up with 12 years of sanctions before they were liberated into a civil war. So yes 'the coalition' have really done everybody a favour by going in there and taking out their nasty old dictator.[/quote]

All you say is true. US policies aren't policies I've always agreed with, but I do need to stick up for the US on this particular issue. You see, when the US backed Saddam, they probably did this to keep Iran at bay. Iran's human rights record isn't pretty, and it's a way of life Europe got rid of 800 years ago. If Iran had taken Iraq, they would have taken the whole middle east. It was a horrid regime (and still is really.) Back to Saddam.... I don't think that when the west kept Saddam in power they expected him to gas and murder his own people, or political enemies. They backed the lesser of two evils, and Saddam got too big for his boots. He became more of a menace to the region than Iran was and thus had to be stopped. Have you ever thought that 'because' we'd backed Saddam against Iran that we had an even more moral duty to save his people from a man we'd kept in power? Imagine if we'd propped up Hitler for the first 5 years and just let him carry on killing Jews, Homosexuals, Slavs and Gypsies?

Saddam made his own choices. He was propped up and armed to keep Iran at bay, and then turned his army on Kuwait -I doubt he'd have stopped there- and turned his weapons on his own people. We couldn't have just let him carry on when it was us that kept him in power in the first place.

Were we wrong in backing Saddam against Iran? Who knows? Would Iran have stopped at Iraq or gone on into Saudi Arabia? (Mecca anyone?) Syria, Jordan and Israel (Jerusalem anyone?) Hindsight, hindsight! It's easy to criticise with hindsight!

Note: While not one for complaining...... I've always answered as many of your questions as I can, in a polite way. My questions to you have always been retorted with other questions. This is ignorance and thus: 'bad form'.

!wink!