egafd.com

Hi, a number of queries, questions & propositions if I may, in response to Officer Dibble and Diplodocus' responses to my previous posts:

First to Diplodocus:

'ah yes, John Pilger, that guru of non-biased reporting, I can see where your argument is going now. No agenda there then'. When I attempt to construct an opinion I try to get as many facts as possible to generate an opinions, which takes all of these into consideration, and as such one side is Blair, Bush & the mainstream media repeating them and to get another opinion, I read the likes of John Pilger, Noam Chomsky et al, and see whose opinion is heldup with facts, and I am firmly in the camp of Pilger & Chomsky. Also, if you have other facts than those stated by Pilger et al, please let me know.

Secondly:
'you seem very quick to blame the US and UK, I see no mention of all the other countries involved in sanctions or the Gulf war or supplying Saddam'. Yep I condemn Saddam for his crimes against the Iraqi people, just as much as the equally comparable crimes committed by Blair, Bush, Chirac, etc, and their respective arms industries.

Thirdly: You respond to my point that: 'The United States made it known that Kuwait was not under its protection. When a dispute arose between Iraq and Kuwait after the end of the Iraq-Iran war, the US Ambassador in Baghdad, April Glasby, informed Saddam Hussein that such inter-Arab disputes were no concern of the United States. Saddam Hussein took this as a green light to invade and occupy Kuwait.', with the comment, 'so that makes it ok then', no it doesn't make it right then, had April Glasby stated that if Saddam invaded Kuwait the US would get involved, then Saddam probably wouldn't have done this, and from this I would say that the US wanted Saddam to invade Kuwait as a pretext to Gulf War I.

Fourthly:

'you also fail to state it was the UN that sanctioned the first war'. By the UN you mean the 5 countries with Veto power voted for it, I.E. UK, US, China, France & Russia, and just because those powers voted for it, doesn't make it right, in my opinion.

Fifthly:

'lets lay the blame anywhere but poor old Saddam, it's not his fault he had to kill millions, it must be our governments, or really you and I, we voted them in'. My argument is not that Saddam is a top guy, he is a brutal dictator, no doubt about it, he was a brutal dictator who was armed and supported throughout his worst crimes by our Governments, our Governments and Saddam are all at fault, and have no right to say, 'we must remove Saddam because he is a dictator', when in the 80s he was our best buddy, lastly, I didn't vote Blair.

Finally:

'your arguments are crap and one sided, this discussion is pointless'. Yep, my argument is one-sided, I am against this war, maybe I am wrong, that is why I engage in these discussions, to see if one fact is produced, which may alter my perceptions in any way, and at the moment there haven't, I still wouldn't describe this discussion as pointless, also if my arguments are crap, give me some facts which would dispute this.

Onto Officer Dibble:

Firstly, Officer Dibble's response to my comment: "Firstly, before the 1st Gulf War, the US knew that Saddam was about to invade Kuwait," with, 'OK, maybe they did, maybe they didn?t. But, so what? When we told Saddam to remove his tanks from Kuwait?s lawn he didn't. Consequently, we were forced to 'give him a slap.' We can't have third world knobheads thumbing their noses at us, now, can we? They need to show some respect'. Iraq had over 100'000 people killed as a result or the First Gulf War, that is nothing like being, 'force to give him [Saddam] a slap'.

Secondly, Officer Dibble's response to my comment: "Firstly a few questions, how does starving a population and denying them the basic necessities for survival, make them able to rise up against Saddam?" with, 'Because before they all drop down dead of hunger, the old human survival instinct would kick in, and, in Iraq's instance, the populace would have thought - 'Dam, we're well hungry, peckish is not the word. But it's all that Saddam fucker's fault - falling out with the western powers an' all, trying to look the big man. He's ruining the fucking country and making our lives a misery with his despotic antics. We've got to get rid of him, sharpish! - Grab yer pitchforks, lads! Let?s storm the fucking palace! - Whhhaaaayyyy!!!!' So with a country the size of France, in the middle of a desert, how is a starving population going to be able to overthrow Saddam, especially when Saddam can say, that it is the UN that is denying any food to be imported not me.

Thirdly, Officer Dibble's response to my comment: "How can someone condemn Saddam for killing his people and then just brush-off the 1/2 million dead," with, 'It's easy when you don't have any middleclass moral pretensions'. How exactly am I middleclass, just because I don't support this war? I just do not understand it, please explain to me? Plus who are these, 'middleclass peers', did I have them before I was opposed to the War, or did I look throught the Yellow Pages, asking for some, 'Anti-War Middleclass peers to hang around with'?

Fourthly: My response to Officer Dibble's comment: ' No, I don't question our motives. Whatever our foreign policies are they are designed to further the best interests of OUR western nations, to keep us safe from international idiots, scumbags and wasters, and to keep our western coffers topped up. That's good enough for me. That's what the vast majority of western voters elect their leaders to do, and so long as our leaders are on with those general goals, I don't see much reason to question them'. A number of questions if I may, why do you assume that our foreign policy is to, 'further the best interests of our western nations'? I don't see how spending ?5 Billion to on military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is going to help the British people one bit, maybe the ?5 Billion could be better spent on our schools or hospitals, just a thought. How does bombing a third-world country and fucking with an entire population for their oil make us safe from, 'international idiots, scumbags and wasters'? And finally your comment, 'as long as our leaders are on with those general goals, I don't see much reason to question them', this I find most disturbing, you should question everything, especially what comes out of our elected leaders' mouths, also why don't you question our leaders' reasoning, and yet you question mine, surely you should question our leaders' far more rigorously than mine?

Finally, a quick number of responses to Officer Dibble's final paragraph:

'And why do middleclass sorts keep banging on about 'the motives for Invading Iraq'. Jeez, me 'an the guys on the Clapham omnibus don't fucking care!', I have already dealt with the middleclass accusations, so I'll deal with the second bit, if people on the bus don't care, why come on here to say you don't care about it?

'Maybe we just went to give Saddam a slap for ?dissing us?? So what?' Saddam, 'dissed us'? I don't understand his worst crimes were done whilst our Governments supported him, and now we are punishing the Iraqi people, because Saddam, 'dissed us', I need a much more convincing reason to support invasion than this.

'Some noncy middleclass types keep suggesting that it might have been about oil - shock, horror! The way those soft twats go on you might think that they personally don't need oil for their cars, their plastics, their medicines, their cosmetics and the umpteen other items that feature in their everyday lives. They?re just talking bollocks, just being perverse. If they don?t like our western way of life, our capitalist, consumerist, society, why don?t they just fuck off to the Kalahari Desert and show some pretentious solidarity with the fucking Bushmen, there?' In response to this, you are implying that we would be unable to be able to buy oil from Iraq without war, which is obviously nonsense, we want Iraq for our, 'medicines .. cosmetics' etc, and Iraq wants to sell it, not a difficuly equation, they sell we buy, how does a war aid this?

So in summary, a few questions for both Diplodocus & Officer Dibble:

Diplodocus:

1) If you have other facts than those stated by Pilger et al, please let me know.
2) In response to the April Glasby point, I would say that the US wanted Saddam to think the US wouldn't interfere, so Saddam would invade Kuwait as a pretext to Gulf War I, your thoughts please?
3) If the 5 permanent member of the UN Security Council vote for something, do you automatically support it without question?
4) I engage in these discussions, to see if one fact is produced, which may alter my perceptions in any way, and as such do not see this discussion as pointless, do you see this discussion as pointless because you aren't getting your way, or because you are not willing to think that the Iraq War was unjust.

Officer Dibble:

1) How exactly am I middleclass, just because I don't support this war? I just do not understand it, please explain to me?
2) Plus who are these, 'middleclass peers', did I have them before I was opposed to the War, or did I look throught the Yellow Pages, asking for some, 'Anti-War Middleclass peers to hang around with'?
3) Maybe the ?5 Billion [spent on operations in Iraq & Afghanistan] could be better spent on our schools or hospitals?
4) How does bombing a third-world country and fucking with an entire population for their oil make us safe from, 'international idiots, scumbags and wasters'?
5) Why don't you question our leaders' reasoning, and yet you question mine, surely you should question our leaders' far more rigorously than mine?
6) Why do you come on this forum to state your opinions and then say, that people on the bus dont' care?
7) How does a War against Iraq mean that we can buy oil? Iraq wants to sell it, and we want to buy it.

Any responses would be greatly received.

Philylad13.

ok fella chill a little

my aggro to this initial post was that the UK/US goverments were as bad as Saddam

I cannot speak for the US I dont live there or live under their laws. I do live in the Uk and have never been gassed or tortured for stating opinions detriment to the 'government'. the way you would have if your views had been read by someone in power under Saddam

you say you get as many facts as possible but fail to post a single argument from the other side of thinking

I have not come down on any side what is right or wrong, just stated that Saddam killed more people than most people in modern history in order to maintain power, if you think that's ok then god help you

ps do you really think that April Glasby made fuck all difference to what Saddam thought, if so then you should really question your own thought processes

?Officer Dibble:

1) How exactly am I middleclass, just because I don't support this war? I just do not understand it, please explain to me?
2) Plus who are these, 'middleclass peers', did I have them before I was opposed to the War, or did I look throught the Yellow Pages, asking for some, 'Anti-War Middleclass peers to hang around with'?
3) Maybe the ?5 Billion [spent on operations in Iraq & Afghanistan] could be better spent on our schools or hospitals?
4) How does bombing a third-world country and fucking with an entire population for their oil make us safe from, 'international idiots, scumbags and wasters'?
5) Why don't you question our leaders' reasoning, and yet you question mine, surely you should question our leaders' far more rigorously than mine?
6) Why do you come on this forum to state your opinions and then say, that people on the bus dont' care?
7) How does a War against Iraq mean that we can buy oil? Iraq wants to sell it, and we want to buy it.?


Ah, glad you asked me all that.

1) We are defined by our attitudes, outlook and culture. A pretentious and assumed concern for people in far off lands of which we know little is an entirely middleclass failing (As are anti-war and anti militarization attitudes). By wringing your hands over these issues you immediately define your self as middleclass, whether you like it or not (some middleclass folks like to pretend they?re proletarians ? it allows then to believe that the are cool and ?happening, that they have ?street cred?). The vast majority of real working class folk have zero interest in geo politics or abstract concepts of morality. Their pressing concerns are more to do with holidays in Tenerife, Sky TV, MacDonald?s Burgers and ?I?m a Celebrity Get me out of Here?. Meanwhile, the upper class?s entirley laudable pursuit of refined pleasure leaves them little time for disingenuous hand wringing.


2) Your ?middleclass peers? are your friends and associates ? the people you hang out with. Being middleclass it?s almost certain that the social grouping you feel most at home with are similarly middleclass ? sharing the same attitudes, culture, and moral standards. I rekon it?s highly unlikely that someone with your pretentious attitudes and concerns would, back in the day, have fitted in wiv? me old building site mates. They wouldn?t have stood for any anti-war ponciness. If you?d have voiced concerns that our lads were being a little harsh on the Iraqi?s they?d have branded you a traitor, given you a slap, then bound your ankles and hoisted you up on a JCB boom.


3) Five billion $ best spent on schools and hospitals? Maybe, maybe not. We don?t know all the facts. Maybe those who have to make decisions on these matters, and are in possession of ALL the facts, took everything into consideration, and then thought ? ?Right, it would be nice to spend this dough on schools and hospitals, but there are serious geo-political issues developing in the middle east that if not addressed decisively could have long term negative consequences for western interests and our way of life?. And maybe they took the considered view that the only way to negate this threat would be to remove Saddam and establish a democracy friendly to the west and it?s interests? So, maybe they thought they best buy some cruise missiles instead? We don?t know all the facts, so we can?t say, can we?


4) That?s not a coherent question. There are various issues and elements in there that need to be addressed individually (which I believe we have already done). There?s the issue of bombing a third world country (Iraq). There?s the issue of persecuting it?s population (as some would have it). There?s the issue of oil. And then there?s the issue of dealing with our enemies, those who oppose us, those who mean us harm, and the issue of those who are simply malicious, incompetent, third world idiots and whether we should just walk by on by or run across the metaphorical road to ?sort them out? by administering a well deserved kicking.


5) But I do question our leaders, all the time. I want to know what they doing about the coming energy crisis, the population crises, the pensions crisis. What are they doing about the chav problem, declining stands in education, teenage mothers, low-level disorder on the streets, binge drinking? Why are they pissing taxpayer?s money away on benefits for useless wasters and idiots? And what about all those fucking spy cameras and speed cameras? Is it so the middleclass wankers can pin us down in order to more easily extract further taxes to piss away on thoroughly undeserving causes? Yes, I am very concerned about the government and the apparent apathy and complacency of the population. But I am not concerned about us flexing our muscles on the international stage or laying down the law to irrational third world tossers. I approve. Hence I don?t question the government when it gets on with that. It?s only when they hold back and do nothing (Mugabe- Zimbabwe) that I get a little cheesed off.


6) ?Why do you come on this forum to state your opinions? Hey, why do you?


7) The idea is that if there was a more sensible, stable, rational, regime controlling Iraq, and not an unpredictable dictator (who might decide to turn the tap off, should the whim take him) we could all got on with the business of commerce an international trade without idiots causing trouble in the region and disrupting everything. War is simply the means of removing the afor mentioned dictatorial idiot and (hopefully seeding a rational western-style democracy in his place).


Now, a few questions for you.


1) Why do people like you delight running down their own side? Why do you show contempt for the democratic system that has provided you with a cozy, cosseted, and middleclass life style? (I am of course assuming that you are part of a western nation and not a fifth columnist or agent of Al Queda, simply out to ferment dissent and cause bollocks?) Why don?t people like you march to Trafalgar Square to complain about the Burmese regime, the North Korean regime? Syria? Why don?t you and yer middleclass pals march to Hyde Park to complain about ID cards, the threat to jury trials, speed cameras? Family courts? Wot? Not fashionable enough for yer, not cool enough for yer? Not, friggin? ?right on? enough for yer?


2) Why do people like you cynically take things out of context and imbue them with emotional baggage to try and whip up the mob? I refer to your talk or implication of ?bombing civilians? and ?stealing their oil? as if the prime objective and motivating factors for the US and Britain are to deliberately kill as many Iraqi civilians as possible and then simply take their oil? Is this not irrational lunacy? If not, then please outline how deliberately setting out to kill as many Iraqi civilians as possible could further our western interests?


3) Why are middleclass people so monumentally naive in thinking that other people, other races and social groups, are as rational, intelligent, caring, and, er, middleclass, as themselves?


4) So, what are your real motives for making these snide innuendos against both the US and Her Majesty?s government, phillylad? Why are you stirring the pot? What do you hope to gain by it? You seem to be insinuating that there is some vast governmental conspiracy (of X-File proportions) that only you seem to be privy to? Reading your material I can never shake off the feeling that you are always just on the cusp of revealing that things are not what they seem. That all forumites are in fact random protocols adrift in the mind of some vast trans-dimensional quantum entity called ?The Source? (which appears to us as George Dubya) and that what we perceive as reality is simply a virtual construct of The Source, intended to keep us subdued, distracted, enslaved. And that George Dubya (The Source) started the Iraq war in order to engage our collective consciousness and deflect us from the truth ? the truth that our continuing existentialist angst is the very food of the Source, and further, that unbeknown to us, Dame Edna Everidge is, in fact, ?The Janitor? - an entity dispatched by the Olympians and charged with rousing us from our delusional reverie and setting us free from the tyranny of ?The Source?. Is this not the case?


Officer Dibble

The University of BGAFD hereby awards:

Philylad13 an M.Sc with distinction;

Diplodicus an M.Phil;

Officer Dibble a p.hD, and hence promotion from 'officer' to 'doctor';

for their theses in the field of Armchair/ Internet/ Pub Politics.

Only joking boys, I love a bit of debate- read Dib's last post there....and we're getting a wee bit heated*, aren't we? But cross-referencing of posts en masse, you could start a journal!

I tell you this though, your tete-a-tetes are far more enlightening than a Michael Moore book.




*yes, it's necessary if you're passionate.

Hi, thanks for the responses always welcome, lol.

Just a quick response to Diplodocus' comments:

Granted the US & UK goverments have not treated their populations as bad as Saddam has, not be a long shot, but in regards to his worst crimes, they were done with the support of our Goverments and I don't how our Governments can turn around and say that they are the reasons for overthrowing him, if they were then our Governments would not have supported them in the first place, and if our Governments cared about the Iraqi people they wouldn't have actively supported the UN sanctions policies. Secondly, I don't 'post a single argument from the other side of thinking', we receive enough of these from press conferences, I just try to find other info to get a decent grasp of the issue. Also, I do think April Glasby had a slight thing to do with Saddam's decision making, had she said that the US would intervene if he invaded Kuwait, would he still invade? Just a question. Lastly, I don't say that it is right for Saddam to kill millions of people to stay in power, I just say that those who supported him throughtout these crimes (I.E. our Governments), have no right to declare to have any moral authority whatsoever.

Onto Officer Dibble: I may as well respond to your questions in order, just so I can keep my trail of thought, fairly linear:

1) Officer Dibble stated: 'The vast majority of real working class folk have zero interest in geo politics or abstract concepts of morality. Their pressing concerns are more to do with holidays in Tenerife, Sky TV, MacDonald?s Burgers and ?I?m a Celebrity Get me out of Here?, so if I concern myself with issues that have some baring on peoples' lives, then I'm middle class, I don't think so, just because I don't concern myself with I'm a Celebrity doesn't make me middle-class, and nor does concern for people in a far-off-land, whos lives have been ruined by Saddam, our support for Saddam, our sanctions policy and now this War.

2) Officer Dibble stated: 'I rekon it?s highly unlikely that someone with your pretentious attitudes and concerns would, back in the day, have fitted in wiv? me old building site mates', so if someones opinions don't fit in well with people that work on a building site means that they have no relevance?

3) Maybe we don't know all the facts, but if someone walks around thinking that a war with Iraq is a good idea because, A) Saddam's a bad man, B) Non-existant WMD & C) something to do with freedom, then they certainly aren't in possession of all the facts, we probably won't know all the facts until MI6 & CIA documents are released in 30 or so years, what we do know however is our Governments' support throughout his worse crimes, plus the US' history of overthrowing democracies they considered to be, 'Communist', regardless of them being voted in by their populations. In terms of your last line, 'We don?t know all the facts, so we can?t say, can we?', yes we can say, that is the point of the discussion, we can't say much for certain about anything in life.

4) Officer Dibble stated: 'there?s the issue of dealing with our enemies, those who oppose us, those who mean us harm, and the issue of those who are simply malicious, incompetent, third world idiots and whether we should just walk by on by or run across the metaphorical road to ?sort them out? by administering a well deserved kicking', so do you support the US & UK policy of, 'do as we say or we will install a regime, which is to our choosing'? Because the, 'threat or use of violence to attain goals, which are political, ideological or religious in behaviour' is the classic definition of terrorism. Lastly on this point, if you think Iraq should be bombed, because Saddam won't do as he is told, just for instance, would you support a US with the UK, if our Government decided to enforce policies, which the US administration deemed a threat?

5) Officer Dibble stated: 'I want to know what they doing about the coming energy crisis, the population crises, the pensions crisis. What are they doing about the chav problem, declining stands in education, teenage mothers, low-level disorder on the streets, binge drinking? Why are they pissing taxpayer?s money away on benefits for useless wasters and idiots? And what about all those fucking spy cameras and speed cameras?' I am largely in agreeance with you, there are huge problems, that is why I disagree with our Government on most issues, I disagree with the coming legislation re: nuclear power, declining standards in education, I also disagree with the Iraq war, and the money which has been spent could be spent to alleviate these.

Secondly, you stated: 'Is it so the middleclass wankers can pin us down in order to more easily extract further taxes to piss away on thoroughly undeserving causes?' Yep the Government, screw the people out of as much money as possible, and spends it on wars, and tries to blame it all on benefits cheats, which is the bigger cost? Benefit cheats can be found and prosecuted, the money spent on war cannot be recouped.

Thirdly, you stated: 'Yes, I am very concerned about the government and the apparent apathy and complacency of the population', in that I agree, if I tell someone that I am interested in politics, they roll their eyes, maybe people wouldn't be so apathetic, if they concerned themselves with the likes of I'm a Celebrity, and finds issues re: politics, boring.

Lastly, Officer Dibble stated: 'It?s only when they hold back and do nothing (Mugabe- Zimbabwe) that I get a little cheesed off', that's a big question, why is it that the people of Iraq deserve a war for, 'freedom, and yet the people of Saudi Arabia, Nigeria & Zimbabwe don't, they are all violent dictators, but Zimbabwe has no oil, so why invade is our Governments opinion, the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia is kept by a small oligarchy, with huge investments in the US, and Nigeria is a violent dictatorship, with loads of oil, but their armed-forces, shoot unarmed civilian protestors on Shell oil rigs, so that is a good dictatorship, by our Goverments standards. Stay tuned for possible action in Venezuela, a popular democratically-elected Government of Hugo Chavez, who spends the oil wealth on the poor of the country, and exports oil to Cuba in exchange for doctors & nurses, sounds like a Communist to be, lol.

6) Yep. I just wonder why you say the working-class don't care about such issues, or if you do you won't get on with builders, and are automatically middleclass, if I was middleclass, which I don't think I am, how is my opinion not relevant?

7) Officer Dibble stated: 'The idea is that if there was a more sensible, stable, rational, regime controlling Iraq, and not an unpredictable dictator (who might decide to turn the tap off, should the whim take him) we could all got on with the business of commerce an international trade without idiots causing trouble in the region and disrupting everything. War is simply the means of removing the afor mentioned dictatorial idiot and (hopefully seeding a rational western-style democracy in his place)', so do you think that this war was for oil, and that it is a good thing?

Onto the last set of four questions, if anyone other than myself, Officer Dibble & Diplodocus have for this far well done, but it may show that you care about this issue and are automatically middleclass, if you read on then you definately are, lol.

1) Officer Dibble stated: 'Why do people like you delight running down their own side?'. Firstly, I don't delight in running down my Country, I would like nothing more than to be proud of it, secondly, what is this, 'running down their own side', just because my parents fucked in this country and I born here, does not mean that I should support it, if people were forced to support actions of their Government, just because of being born there, you would consider this wrong, yes/ no.

Thirdly, Officer Dibble stated: 'Why do you show contempt for the democratic system that has provided you with a cozy, cosseted, and middleclass life style?'. I think I have dealt with the middleclass responses enough, but I don't show contempt for the, 'democratic system', just our Government, just because I have been brought up with an ecucation, and other stuff from taxation, doesn't mean that I should support our Goverment, I would consider it wrong if there was a handbook given to be on my first day of school saying, 'you are being educated by the British Government, and as such have no right to complain about anything', granted our country is far more free than most countries in this world, and as such I will accept what I like, and complain about what I don't, it is a democracy after all.

Fourthly, I'm not a member of Al Qaeda, quite a nice propaganda tool that George Bush and Attorney John Ashcroft have used though, as after 9/11 he said, 'those that question my policies are aiding and abetting terrorists' and they say that Saddam didn't want people to have freedom of speech.

Fifthly you state: 'Why don?t people like you march to Trafalgar Square to complain about the Burmese regime, the North Korean regime? Syria? Why don?t you and yer middleclass pals march to Hyde Park to complain about ID cards, the threat to jury trials, speed cameras? Family courts? Wot? Not fashionable enough for yer, not cool enough for yer? Not, friggin? ?right on? enough for yer?'. This thread is entitled, 'Saddam Hussain', maybe a discussion about speed cameras is not the place, lol. Also, I didn't march on Trafalgar Square, with the amount of marches for different issues, I can't afford it with my dole money. Also, there are plenty of other political concerns I am interested in, and there are other marches, in fact there was one in Oxford today, protesting UK arms sales to Indonesia, just because the G8 & Anti-War demonstrations get on the news doesn't mean they are the only ones. See the following for info re: UK arms sales to Indonesia:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreigna ... 77,00.html
&
http://www.fpcn-global.org/

2) Officer Dibble stated: 'as if the prime objective and motivating factors for the US and Britain are to deliberately kill as many Iraqi civilians as possible and then simply take their oil?'. I do not state that the objective is to kill are many Iraqis as possible, it is war, do you think that our Governments thought that this would be bloodless, or course not. I don't say that killing Iraqi civilians will further our interests, I state this war in its totality will not further the British populations interests, in regards to the costs (both financial and lives lost), and where any profit will go, it won't aid the populations interests at all.

3) My response to Officer Dibble question: 'Why are middleclass people so monumentally naive in thinking that other people, other races and social groups, are as rational, intelligent, caring, and, er, middleclass, as themselves?' I answer a question with a question, 'why is it that some people say that Saddam is a bad guy for killing Iraqis and then implying that Iraqis aren't worth as much as us, and as such have the right to engage in war with them, and treating them as though there lives are expendable, just because they born in a country with oil?

4) I won't quote all of Officer Dibbles' last question, but it is basically asking, if I am a conspiracy nut, and what I think I will gain by, 'stirring the pot', and that I am about to reveal, 'things are not what they seem'. Things aren't what they seem, the real aims of war can't be discussed, as most people would support a war for oil, so it has to be because, 'Saddam has weapons that could kill us all in 45 minutes', remember this it may have been 2 years ago, but that is what the British population were told, and you think that those that don't support this war are one of three things, 'middleclass', 'a member of Al Qaeda' or a, 'conspiracy nut?

Then Officer Dibble goes on to refer to Carl Jungs' 'collective consciousness' and John-Paul Satre's 'existentialism'. And he calls me middleclass and pretentious, or inamongst talk of I'm a Celebrity and SkyTV, does yourself and your mates on the building site talk about Carl Jung in amongst your talk about the next Bush-Tucker challenge, lol?

Lastly thank you for Fudgeflaps' comments, regarding, Officer Dibble, Diplodocus' and my own bit of armchair politics, it probably is more enlightening than some Michael Moore stuff, because at the end of the day, he says all we can do is vote John Kerry or the democrats, he should be voting Ralph Nadar, its a bit like saying I don't like the tories, vote Labour or Lib Dem and everything will change, just going out once every four years and marking your cross next to someones name will change little.

Anyhow, thats it for me for one day, I'm now going to stop being interested in politics and start to concern myself with I'm a Celebrity and how horrible it is that Simon voted off his own group, so that I am not classed as either, 'middleclass', 'a member of Al Qaeda' or a, 'conspiracy nut', lol.

Cheers!

Philylad13.

P.S. I hope Sheree wins I'm a Celebrity, and Shayne wins the X-Factor, and I really want an XBox 360 or a PSP, am I not middleclass now?

""Officer Dibble a p.hD, and hence promotion from 'officer' to 'doctor';"

Why, thank you fudgeflaps, old chap. How kind of you. All awards, titles, accolades and general recognition are gratefully received (and indeed sought).

I'll probably carry on with my current title of ?Officer? and treat my ?Doctorate? as an honorary title ? only to be wheeled out when the need arises to impress ruffians, nere-do-wells, and uppity middleclass types who have to temerity to question my credentials.


Officer Dibble

Give up wasting your energies on him philylad.
The dribbling orificer is a troll.

Mart

Er, excuse me, mart. But that'll be 'Dr' Dibble to you. And if you don't behave yourself I'll have to start leaning on your posts.


Dr Dibble (PhD ? University of BGAFD)