Bubbles85 said:

The British government has not been far right for some time at all. Stop talking complete and utter bullshit.

We have had a center left government "New Labour" since 1997, who remained in power until 2010.
Labour are now un disputably left under Corbyn, who is the biggest idiot ever to take leader ship of the party and that's saying some thing trust me.

The conservatives then came in to power in 2010 and remain in power until this day, 5 years on, They're a center right party.

Thats 2 decades of government.

Who are the party's, that are far right, that have been in power for some time in the UK?

---

qman said:

The Middle East is never going to be stable regardless of Western influence or not.

---

Quote:

Every time the violence heats up around Israel, even liberals say "the US needs to do something".

---

Because its the US that has given itself the tasks of being number 1, leading the world, captain fucking america. Thats a US decision..and then the US is surprised when the US is looked upon for help in conflicts in which they have significant leverage

airclay said:

Please present sources for these claims, also the mid east is bigger than iraq, what about syria? I believe right now the fight is over property to build and control pipelines but that doesn't mean I'd negate any of the responsibility of the military industrial complex or control of the poppy supplies in afghanistan. All of which are capitalist actions in order to better serve a corporate oligarchy.

---

Tipote said:

How many times, Bubbles? Labour was very slightly left wing under Blair, New Labour was a neoliberal proponent and closer to the Conservatives than Labour.
Was the global neoliberal economic agenda a left wing policy? What about the global war on terror? was that a left wing policy?

Blair was Bush's bum chum and went along with a right wing policy of invading the middle east. Just because they happened to be a mostly centre, slightly left leaning party didnt make that invasion a left wing policy. Remember Bush said, "youre either with us or against us" ?

Right and "left" are following the same policies - that of the corporate state. This is exactly the problem of why things have been building up for so long. Citizens are alienated by a broken 2 party system where both parties are generally following the same kind of policies and tend to favour corporate interests over the interests of the people.

Quote:

Don't respond with some bullshit like "thats nothing compared to whats happening today" like you normally do.

Just because there were less people coming in the early 00's, does not some how make it irrelevant to toady's events.
The point is, is that this government are the ones who are responsibly, for the creation of the flow of people in the first place. It's just gotten worse and worse as the years have gone on.

---

what figure did we settle on? 3.5-4 million people in 13 years? compared to over 1 million refugees in Europe (mostly in Germany) in 1 year. With probably a max of 4000 a year, for 5 years, to the UK.

I dont think i said that it couldnt be compared, most that it is hardly relevant to the current refugee crisis that New Labour under Blair accepted record numbers of foreigners, some were economic migrants, some were asylum seekers. I conceded already that the only relevance was that it made some people angry with the policy. This contributes to the total disenfranchisement with the system but was not responsible for the refugee crisis. 

Just as the war on drugs is fucking stupid, so is the war on terror so was the neoliberal economic agenda.
Just as fighting the war on drugs means the profitability goes up and drugs proliferate, the war on terror just does the same thing.

---

Bubbles85 said:

All governments, left wing or right wing, are corrupt and will serve only to fuck things up, over and over again, no matter who's in power.

---

HEY...cheers to that

airclay said:

You def seem correct based on what you've presented here, altho further down this page, it shows the foreign partners involved in ownership, drilling and selling the oil. this table reflects that corps in countries involved in the latest iraqi invasion profit off the oil no matter who it's being sold to.

---

Bubbles85 said:

airclay said:

You def seem correct based on what you've presented here, altho further down this page, it shows the foreign partners involved in ownership, drilling and selling the oil. this table reflects that corps in countries involved in the latest iraqi invasion profit off the oil no matter who it's being sold to.

---

---

airclay said:

Bubbles85 said:

airclay said:

You def seem correct based on what you've presented here, altho further down this page, it shows the foreign partners involved in ownership, drilling and selling the oil. this table reflects that corps in countries involved in the latest iraqi invasion profit off the oil no matter who it's being sold to.

---

---

don't tap dance too far away, notice the underlined portion.

---

If you're referring to Figure 1, all that shows is Iraq's total oil production, compared to there overall consumption.
It doesn't show that country's involved in the invasion are profiting from oil, regardless of who its being mined, or sold by

Tipote said:

Bigbadwooof said:

I wanna be a fucking Jedi. Lets do this shit.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon#England_and_Wales

fucking jedi scum, coming over here, taking our jobs with jedi mind tricks!

---

Tipote said:

it is Western corporations who own the production part.

---

Bubbles85 said:

Again, figure 1 does not show where the oil produced in Iraq is being exported to. Yes it shows that the amount being produced increased due to export, but you can't make the assumption that Iraq's oil was suddenly being exported away from the West, based on that graph.

---

Quote:

You're argument, that the invasion was soley based on policies to further US & UK corporate interests seems flawed.

---

Quote:

As i have all ready shown, why would the UK & US allow the majority of oil fields and exports to go to country's like China, Russia, Korea and Malaysia? It's clearly not within there interest to do that, if the war were solely for our own corporate interest's.

Why would they not keep a strangle hold on it and remain in full control of production and keep all of the profits?

---

Quote:

It makes no sense, that the US & UK would wage war in Iraq, in a direct attempt to further the cause of our own corporate interest through oil, to then hand that production and exportation over to country's who had no involvement in the invasion at all?

---