Appalling stuff from the Daily Express

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by danielf

I find that a rather distasteful accusation. I was not particularly in favour of the war, but, for a long time felt that we should stay to clear up the mess we created. Right now I'm leaning towards thinking we are doing more harm than good. It's got nothing to do with sticking two fingers up to the Iragis. Quite the opposite in fact.



Again, I suggest you reconsider your posting style. Comparing people that disagree with you with people that would like to see a race war? What type of debating technique is that?

Are you stating that if all of the foreign troops and workers left Iraq, then everything would get better, and it's the presence of those troops and workers which are causing Iraqi's to kill each other, and the troops are providing no benefits at all to security?
Or do you acknowledge that the troops and workers are actually providing some benefit to security?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Are you stating that if all of the foreign troops and workers left Iraq, then everything would get better, and it's the presence of those troops and workers which are causing Iraqi's to kill each other, and the troops are providing no benefits at all to security?
Or do you acknowledge that the troops and workers are actually providing some benefit to security?

Oh, nice dichotomy there. What I am saying is that there appears to be very little support for our presence in Iraq amongst the Iragis, and that our presence appears to be one of the causes of a lot of the violence.

So, we should consider pulling out but equip/train/whatever the Iraqis to deal with the violence themselves. Oh, and I'm not (necessarily) talking about the workers. It's the troops I'm talking about.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by danielf

Oh, nice dichotomy there. What I am saying is that there appears to be very little support for our presence in Iraq amongst the Iragis, and that our presence appears to be one of the causes of a lot of the violence.

So, we should consider pulling out but equip/train/whatever the Iraqis to deal with the violence themselves. Oh, and I'm not (necessarily) talking about the workers. It's the troops I'm talking about.

Which is exactly what I said in the post you quoted:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Exactly, through lack of support, and by allowing militias etc to gain power, hence why we should remain until the Iraqi goverment are able to keep the peace, rather than withdraw and let things get worse.
It's all about thinking of your fellow man rather than sticking two fingers up at them and leaving them to be killed.

Pulling out our troops before then would be morally scandalous to me. It would be sticking two fingers up at the Iraqi's and abandoning them.
I don't think there is anyone alive that I've heard of saying that we should never pull troops out.
Everyone is either saying that we should pull them out when the time is right, or they're saying we should pull them out right now, either ignorant, unphased, or supportive (such as Locky was) of the resultant massacres which would take place.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Which is exactly what I said in the post you quoted:

Pulling out our troops before then would be morally scandalous to me. It would be sticking two fingers up at the Iraqi's and abandoning them.
I don't think there is anyone alive that I've heard of saying that we should never pull troops out.
Everyone is either saying that we should pull them out when the time is right, or they're saying we should pull them out right now, either ignorant, unphased, or supportive (such as Locky was) of the resultant massacres which would take place.

Well, I think we should perhaps be a little more proactive in equipping the Iragis so we can pull out, because I do wonder how much good we are actually doing at the moment.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by danielf

Well, I think we should perhaps be a little more proactive in equipping the Iragis so we can pull out, because I do wonder how much good we are actually doing at the moment.

Diverting aggression against armed and well trained forces which otherwise would be directed towards civilians of another religion is one benefit, although a strange one.
Patrolling the streets, training the Iraqi forces, helping route out militia members within the police and army, providing uniforms, administrative support, repair and rebuild work, medical treatment and supplies, just some of the benefits foreigners are providing.
The government was elected stating that the foreign forces' presence would be requested for as long as they were required, the people voted, a larger percentage of the population risked their lives to vote than can be bothered to in the relative safety of the UK.
The Iraqi government is still requesting the presence of foreigners.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Diverting aggression against armed and well trained forces which otherwise would be directed towards civilians of another religion is one benefit, although a strange one.

And there is none of the second type of aggression right now? As I said, the Iraqis need to be equipped to deal with it themselves. No 'diversion of agression' there. Removing a sourse of aggression rather.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The Iraqi government is still requesting the presence of foreigners.

And as far as I know the majority of Iraqis would rather see the troops leave. Does that count at all?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by danielf

And there is none of the second type of aggression right now? As I said, the Iraqis need to be equipped to deal with it themselves. No 'diversion of agression' there. Removing a sourse of aggression rather.

Why have you ignored the other benefits I listed?
We've both agreed that our troops should be withdrawn when they are no longer needed, however foreigners will be needed for much longer.

And as far as I know the majority of Iraqis would rather see the troops leave. Does that count at all?

Troops aren't the only foreigners there though are they?
You're not suggesting it's ok for Iraqi's to think foreigners should leave but its racist and appauling for Brits to think that foreigners should leave are you?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Why have you ignored the other benefits I listed?
We've both agreed that our troops should be withdrawn when they are no longer needed, however foreigners will be needed for much longer.

1. Because I stated that the Iraqis should be equipped to do it themselves. (And I think we should work harder at that).
2. I made a distinction between troops and workers in post 122:

Originally Posted by danielf

Oh, and I'm not (necessarily) talking about the workers. It's the troops I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by xaccers

Troops aren't the only foreigners there though are they?
You're not suggesting it's ok for Iraqi's to think foreigners should leave but its racist and appauling for Brits to think that foreigners should leave are you?

See point 2.

[Xaccers]

The question posed was what other countries do not want Brits there (hence why I've tried keeping on topic in my replies mentioning foreigners in Iraq not just troops, and pointed out that the troops are there at the request of the Iraqi government).
BBKing (predictably) stated Iraq.
This is patently not the case.
Some Iraqi's don't want foreign troops there (tends to get in the way of killing each other).

If someone did a survey in Oldham, asking if foreigners should be forced to leave the country, you'd expect them to conclude that the majority of people want this, even if they asked 1000 people (the stastical number required to be asked). Now, they could claim therefore that the majority of people in the UK want foreigners to be deported, yet that isn't the case.
Likewise, if someone did a similar survey in certain areas of Iraq, you'd get varying conclusions.
Gotta love those statistics.
Then take into account the government was elected stating that it would request the presence of foreign troops for as long as required. So if the people were really against that, why didn't they vote for one of the groups stating they'd remove all the troops straight away?

I put it to you that you would denounce the Oldham survey and explain the reasonings behind it's flaws, but because of the emotive nature of Iraq, not give the same consideration publically to the Iraq surveys.
Eitherway, if the majority of respondants in a survey are to have their wish granted, would you be ok with foreigners being removed from Oldham?

[popper]

helping route out militia members within the police and army,

providing uniforms, administrative support, repair and rebuild work, medical treatment and supplies, just some of the benefits foreigners are providing.

you make it sound like some tin pot back water with no resources or tech knowhow of its own, however its clear to most people that iraq is infact one of the worlds longest/oldest cultures etc.

and infact before the war , had the health service in line and modeled after the UK , masses of tech knowhow and the resources to finance that future growth,.

why exactly are these foreign workers there, for the massive pay packet they are getting compared to what they can get elsewere, the very same reason the UK are getting foreign workers here too, so they can earn far more than they do elswere.

[danielf]

The elections were 18 months ago. Since then, things have only gotten worse, and from what I understand, the support for the presence of the troops has dwindled. But yeah, it probably was a dodgy survey... (insert irony smiley here)

Originally Posted by foreverwar

But unlike other commentators, Trevor Philips proposed solutions to increase integration, rather than just repeating "rivers
of blood" type speeches. If by the "recent riots" you mean Birmingham Lozells, they seem very reminiscent of occurrences in Norn Iron in the 60's up to recently (or doesn't NI count as part of UK?). If you mean the riots in 2001, not very "recent", are they?

And in spite of Philips' proposals, integration is not increasing and communities are becoming even more segregated. In the context of immigration (and you did go back to the Roman era) the riots in 2001 were recent. I can't see that any changes have been made that will stop this sort of violence occuring again, and the public have lost confidence in the mainstream parties to listen to their concerns. And the riots in NI (which is clearly a part of the UK) were about very specific grievances.

Oooh, to name but a few - BNP, UKIP; if you read their literature (and I am sure you do), you will find many instances of comments and language catering to the lowest common demonimator of fear of differences. I don't believe that everyone who raises the issue of immigration (loved the way you inserted "mass" in there - nice trick using emotive language ) is crying
wolf, just the ones who use the topic to incite fear in others for their own ends, appealing to those who feel uneasy and are looking for someone, anyone, to blame. btw, who said (besides you, twisting things round and using more emotive language) that some people support "mass" (there's that extra word slipped in again) immigration, and that they have an agenda? Or is
that the old political trick of smearing non-existent opponents, in order to let the the smearers (uuurgh) make statements that would otherwise have no justification? (as in, we must stand against all these people who believe in "mass" (love that word) immigration).

I don't read the BNP's literature, but I have read UKIP's and don't find anything to support what you have suggested. But if you want to supply a specific policy or quote from UKIP, I'll think again, of course. And as for using emotive languague, you have been at least as guilty of that than I have. But I think we will obviously disagree on that! Just how would you describe immigration at the present level? (Net 180,00 pa.) To describe it as "mass" was not a "trick" at all.

In believing that people are incapable of making up their own minds after listening to the various commentators, I think you are being particularly patronising.

Mainstream parties without a doubt support immigration at levels are unprecedented in British history. (They even want Turkey in the EU.) I accept that you can't answer for Labour and the Lib Dems, but perhaps you know why the Tories do?

erm, 48th out of 230 - not really "one of the World's most densely populated countries", is it?

Yes, it is when comparing like with like, and I can’t really see the point of doing anything else.
1. Monaco
2 Macau S.A.R.
3 Hong Kong S.A.R.
4 Singapore
5 Gibraltar
6 Vatican City
7 Malta
8 Bermuda
9 Maldives
10 Bahrain
11 Bangladesh
12 Channel Islands
13 Nauru
14 Republic of China
15 Barbados
– Saint-Martin (France)
16 Palestinian territories
17 Mauritius
18 Aruba (Netherlands)
– Mayotte (France)
19 South Korea
20 San Marino
21 Puerto Rico (US)
22 Tuvalu
23 Netherlands
24 Martinique (France)
25 Comoros
26 Lebanon
27 Rwanda
28 Marshall Islands
29 Belgium
30 Japan
31 India
32 El Salvador
– Saint-Barthélemy (France)
33 American Samoa (US)
34 U.S. Virgin Islands (US)
35 Sri Lanka
36 Réunion (France)
37 Guam (US)
38 Haiti
39 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
40 Israel
41 Saint Lucia
42 Philippines
43 Burundi
44 Grenada
45 Trinidad and Tobago
46 Vietnam
47 Guadeloupe
48 United Kingdom

And with few exceptions (most notably Belgium and the Netherlands) none of those countries have accepted unrestricted immigration on anything even close to the level seen in Britain. And I’d still be interested to hear your thoughts on the quality of life for future inhabitants of this country. (Official predicted population increase of 10 million by 2075.)

Black Death = 14th Century; Hugeunots = 17th Century - the connection is? The plague outbreak in the 17th Century killed approx 100k in England, and the Hugeunots integrated over time, just like (I believe) recent immigrants will.

You wanted to look at immigration in the historical context, didn’t you? I brought the Black Death up to one consequence of a falling population, and the Hugeunot immigration was tiny in today's terms. We are all free to believe whatever we wish.



---------- Post added at 12:57 ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Freezin, what can you tell us about the mass immigration from Ireland that occured in the 50's?

Why?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by freezin

Why?

There were similar predictions regarding the influx of Irish workers over here working on the motorways.
Apparently by now we should be overrun by Irish, yet I'm pretty sure we're not.
Can you imagine why we aren't overrun by Irish when if the immigration rate at it's peak was assumed to be continual (ooo there's a clue!) suggested that by now they'd be in the majority?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Can you imagine why we aren't overrun by Irish when if the immigration rate at it's peak was assumed to be continual (ooo there's a clue!) suggested that by now they'd be in the majority?

There's the problem with quoting predictions. They assume a constant rate of immigration. It's possible that in the next 70 years or so that Immigration will slow massively (as it has with the Irish) or increase.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

There's the problem with quoting predictions. They assume a constant rate of immigration. It's possible that in the next 70 years or so that Immigration will slow massively (as it has with the Irish) or increase.

Exactly.
Look at all the British workers who spent time over in West Germany in the early 80's.
If the rate of immigration had remained the same, then eventually Brits would out number Germans.
In reality, the work was completed, no jobs=no reason to stay so the majority left again.
Likewise, if British schools suddenly started producing kids who wanted to be plumbers, builders, toilet cleaners etc, then there wouldn't be jobs for immigrants to fill, no job, no way of feeding or sheltering yourself, so you don't come here.
With Europe we have to also take into account that the UK is one of the few countries that allows them to come and fill the jobs Brits aren't willing to do.