Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Anti-EU Sentiment Thread

Discussion in 'Europe & Russia' started by BMD, May 21, 2016.

  1. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
    layman likes this.
  2. IndiranChandiran

    IndiranChandiran Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    795
    Country Flag:
    India
    The 4 th one , where we don't get to argue with thin skinned and thick skulled Irish .

    Jokes apart .lets see what gibberish have you posted.

    Ah ! The same old trope .You still haven't pointed out where did I condone the events of 9/ 11.Must I kill myself drilling it into you ?have you recovered enough from last nights excesses or are you still wasted ? Or is this your normal condition ?


    True.Yet inspite of all the neighbouring countries being in favour of relaxing sanctions , the US was adamant in allowing no let up. There was a good reason for it too .
    Once ensconced in the ME , the US didn't want out but kept raising the bogey of Saddam Hussein to justify their bases in the region , which in turn was one of the reasons why the lid on anti Americanism / anti western blew off .The world , particularly the US and it's stooge the UK is facing the blowback of those events .They spilled over into Syria .We've seen what happened there as well.

    Yes .You opted for the removal of Saddam by launching the Gulf War without the fig leaf of UN approval .The rest , including the killings of a few million Iraqis both during the war and the civil war that ensues till date are mere numbers .Something that doesn't trouble your conscience unlike those 3k killed in the 9/11 attacks.

    Oh Padraig , Padraig !! To a lay observer , it must seem like a gaffe .Like you've typed it with both feet firmly in your mouth .But we know better , don't we ?

    Yet ,after all this brouhaha , there's absolutely no sign of WMD's or the minutest of infrastructure to support such claims .

    You could have supported an Iran type deals with Iraq .Let SH have handled the mess that's Iraq and the world would be a safer place .Nobody's asking your leaders to host either Assad or the Iranians or even Saddam Hussein , were he in charge , in the Buckingham Palace.

    Many a times life presents us with critical choices - the exercise of which need not result in a favourable outcome .We have to choose something which does the least damage .One can classify it as a sub optimal choice but such is life .

    Having said that , you didn't even pause to think of the consequences .In spite of dire forecasts your allies in the ME made on the fallout of such a war .You actually walked in thinking you'd be welcomed as saviours. None of the rest of the world bought that nonsense but the Americans did followed by your compatriots ,Padraig .

    You ought to have gone after NoKo and Pakistan much before .Too bad you didn't .While we will be facing the consequences of your exercise in foolish choices and ours too , you won't be too far behind .
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  3. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    @randomradio, @Picard, @vstol jockey

    Note the graph above. Somehow all the chief people in EU are from countries that are net beneficiaries of the EU budget. E.g. Juncker - Luxembourg - gets 6-7 times what they put in back. Verhofstadt - Belgium - gets £2bn/year back. Tusk - Poland - gets £12bn per year back.
     
  4. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Diversion is a classic tactic of the Islamist apologist.

    No they weren't. The region was deeply concerned by the presence of Saddam Hussein, especially Kuwait, which he invaded, or did you forget that? It was either sanctions, or remove him and end up with sectarian violence like now.


    The Iraqis killed themselves you imbecile. It wasn't the US truck-bombing mosques and market places every other day of the week. JFC, you're dumb. Definitely an Islamist. And your numbers are way off.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War


    The WMD claim probably was fake, but he needed to go in order to lift the sanctions. The problem with people like you is you would never be happy whichever option was picked. Sanctions - oh Saddam withheld the aid from his people, so NATO's fault. Remove Saddam - NATO at fault for ISIS. Leave Saddam alone, he developes nukes, then Pakistan supplies Saudi Arabia nukes, then Middle East nuked, then NATO's fault for standing idly by. The reason it's so easy for you to criticise is because you literally never done anything, therefore you can't possibly have done anything wrong.

    No, we couldn't. Iran is actually sensible relative to Saddam Hussein. Iran has kept out of wars for a long time. Saddam Hussein on the other hand only called a truce with Iran so he could invade Kuwait, with what was the 4th largest military in the world at the time. He also had a shitload of chemical weapons, which he'd used on the Kurds and Shias several times and a nuclear program. You probably weren't even following all this in 1991 and before, so your opinion is invalid frankly. The guy should have been at a war crimes tribunal never mind running a country. Lifting sanctions was not an option, you cannot begin to compare him to Iran.

    http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/IraqCoverage/story?id=2761722&page=1

    1974 -- Dawa Killings


    Five leaders of the Shiite Islamic Dawa Party were sentenced to death and killed as Saddam consolidated his power. In 2004, those murders were among many charges announced against Saddam. The U.S. State Department estimates thousands of Saddam's political rivals were killed.





    1980 -- Fayli Deportations and Killings


    Thousands of Kurds of the Fayli sect were persecuted. Some were expelled to Iran, others killed. Saddam thought of them as Iranian, and therefore as enemies. Fayli women were often imprisoned or put into camps.





    1983 -- Barzani Abductions


    After the Iraqi-based Kurdistan Democratic Party allied with Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam sought to punish the clan and its leader, Massoud Barzani. More than 5,000 males, some as young as 10, disappeared. Decades later the remains of 512 Barzani men were discovered in a mass grave. They were reinterred in 2005. A letter that shows Saddam's direct involvement in the crimes was discovered in Baghdad.





    1988 -- Al-Anfal Campaign


    From February to September 1988, Saddam conducted what has been called a genocidal campaign against the Kurdish population. Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majid, or "Chemical Ali," Saddam's cousin, carried out the Al-Anfal operation using chemical weapons. Human Rights Watch estimates between 50,000 and 100,000 died. Kurdish officials and some international human rights groups put the number killed as high as 182,000. Saddam was on trial for the Anfal campaign at the time of his execution. Six defendants remain in the Al-Anfal case, including "Chemical Ali," who is facing charges of genocide.





    1988 -- Halabja Gassing


    During the Anfal campaign, "Chemical Ali" ordered an attack against civilians in the town of Halabja. Iraqi forces dropped bombs containing mustard and nerve gases. An estimated 5,000 men, women and children died in a single day. Many more died from long-term medical problems, and birth defects are still common in the area.





    1990s -- Marsh Arabs Devastated


    Saddam attacked the Shiite "Marsh Arabs" by destroying their land. Once a significant wetland, the marshes in southern Iraq were devastated by a government drainage plan that left behind a wasteland. In 1991, 250,000 Marsh Arabs lived in the region. Now 90 percent of the area is in ruins and only an estimated 20,000 people remain. Tens of thousands live in refugee camps in Iran. Efforts are now underway to restore the marshes. Human Rights Watch calls the campaign against the Marsh Arabs a crime against humanity and other rights activists call it genocide. There are claims chemical weapons also were used.





    1990 -- Invasion of Kuwait


    In August of 1990, Saddam ordered the Iraqi military, the fourth largest military in the world at the time, to invade Kuwait, leading to the 1991 Gulf War. Iraqi soldiers are accused of torturing and executing hundreds of Kuwaitis, as well as taking hostages and looting. More than 700 oil wells were set on fire and pipelines opened, spilling oil into the Gulf.





    1991 -- Kurdish and Shiite Rebellions


    After heeding President George H.W. Bush's call to rebel against Saddam, Shiites and Kurds were crushed by immense Iraqi military force. Saddam turned his military against the people as part of his widespread crackdown after the war. The rebels thought they would have the backing of the U.S. military. Thousands have been discovered in mass graves.





    1999 -- Al-Sadr Assassination


    Ayatollah Muhammed al-Sadr, father of prominent Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and two of his sons were assassinated in 1999. Al-Sadr was a well-liked Shiite leader, and his death spawned Shiite uprisings in Baghdad. As he had previously, Saddam cracked down on the rebellion and hundreds were killed.



    In a statement responding to the execution, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki said, "Let the families of Iraqi martyrs killed in mass graves, Anfal, Halabja or those executed in the cells of the dead regime be happy. The mothers, orphans and widows should celebrate the death of the buried dictator."


    And as proven, sanctions did do the least damage.

    It was a choice between 3 terrible options and there was no right or wrong choice. They were all shit because Saddam Hussein was a shitty person.
     
  5. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,307
    Lux and Belgium get money because that's where the EU institutions are located.
     
  6. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    So? I'm not talking about money that's being used by the EU parliament, this is what the country itself gets back. What you see is 19 nations being subsidised by just 9 nations, some of them not even poor.... Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Spain, Portugal. The whole damn thing is corrupt.
     
  7. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,307
    That's how it is in any union, even India. Money from rich states subsidize the people from poorer states. But that in turn gives the rich states access to the market in poor states.

    UK exports a lot to the EU because of this, over 200 billion pounds in exchange for a 10 billion surcharge, and they get a portion of it back anyway.

    And rich states are going to have richer people so tax collections will obviously be higher. For example, some states in India have 2-3 times more per capita income compared to the poorest states. So richer states will look like they are giving away more money, but that's not the case at a per capita level.
     
  8. IndiranChandiran

    IndiranChandiran Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    795
    Country Flag:
    India
    Well , Padraig . I knew you tended to obfuscate . I think what everyone has seen of you now is incontrovertible proof that is you're a liar . Not a very intelligent one at that too.But you're Irish . Hence , you're excused.

    No it wasn't. Please go through this link thoroughly - https://www.globalpolicy.org/previous-issues-and-debate-on-iraq/sanctions-against-iraq.html

    It will testify that towards the late 90's approaching the new millenium , governments in the ME saw the US & it's allies for what they were and demanded relaxation of the sanctions not elimination of it, so as to alleviate human suffering of which you've nothing to say.The Gulf monarchies didn't want him removed which is why they did not participate in Gulf War -2. They certaily were wary of him But as you would say , a known devil is better than an unknown one.For good reason too. Present day Iraq is an artificial construct following the culmination of WW-1 & the dissolution of the Turkish Empire . The Sykes - Picot agreement between the BE & the French recognised by the Russians carved out Asia Minor into spheres of influence , protectorates and independent nations. I dislike spoon feeding . But here goes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement

    The bringing in 3 separate ethnic groups together -The Shi'ite Arabs, The Sunnis & the Kurds created its own set of problems right since the inception of Iraq and also in the greater ME. Incidentally , the Wahabbi dominated Saudis led by the Al Saud family were initially backed up by the BE and following WW-2 the US & its allies. The explanations given today from apologists in the UK was that wahabbism was akin to Protestantism , a puritanical form of Islam. Well , you asked for it. You've had it.Remember Karma is a B***h.

    The fear was that if Saddam was deposed , the Shi'ite may gain power & Iran would be in the ascendancy. What's left unsaid is that chaos would reign . All of which came to pass. WTF have you been reading from , Padraig? You need a proper education in international politics. particularly of the ME.


    He needed to go ? And you never anticipated a power vaccum. just like you walked out of Afghanistan once the USSR was dissolved. We saw what that led too. The fact is after the Gulf War - 1 , Iraq was comprehensively de fanged. The Gulf war - 2 wasn't even waged to locate WMD and destroy it.I can write tins & quote reams but the bottom line was that Bush led Iraq wanted their oil. It's another matter that Shale oil deposits which were discovered in vast quantities in the US during the Bush era rendered the oil fields in Iraq redundant.

    The numbers are quoted here . Give it as much of a margin of error as you can -

    http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-08/news/mn-2590_1_gulf-war

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Effects_on_the_Iraqi_people_during_sanctions

    https://www.iraqbodycount.org/


    The blood of all those who died from something as common as the common cold to something as frightening as heart disease is on your head too. Apart from the sectarian hatred you helped unleash and fan.



    Let me quote you on what your opinion on Iran was a few nights ago
    http://indiandefence.com/threads/do...korea-nuclear-threat.59430/page-2#post-547251

    I , sometimes wish you were in the Foreign Office. I mean those stiff upper lips there need to have a guffaw once in a while. The rest of your post is redundant.The inconsistencies in your views would give a feckless politician a complex. No wonder picdelamir , bon plan , randomradio, etc engage & indulge you. You can be a hoot at times.How old are you , again?

    and your solution was the bloodiest possible one.Saddam Hussein was a bloody tyrant and a megalomaniac too. But the west propped him up when they needed him to de stabilise Khoneini and Iran podst the 1979 revolution. The US certainly had a grudge against Iran . Once that purpose was achieved , Saddam outlived his utility. It's also speculated that Saddam sounded out the senior Bush administration on his plans of invading Kuwait. In person with James Baker who remained silent. Saddam being the fool he was mistook his silence for assent.


    Now run along , child.
     
  9. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Not really Abu Akbar, just pointing out that Islamic extremism has nothing to do with the west and everything to do with articles in the Qu'ran which promote that kind of behaviour and Muslims not having the good sense to ignore it.



    No they weren't, your link does not say that. After 1991 NFZs had to be placed over Northern and Southern Iraq to prevent Saddam from killing Shias and Sunnis. He regularly tried to breach those zones in order to do just that.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

    It's easy to underestimate how dangerous this prick was because we dealt with him for you. Don't mention it.

    And we all know why that created its own set of problems right? Because Muslims were involved. Muslims cannot coexist peacefully either with themselves (Sunnis vs Shia) or with other groups. There isn't a single damn country with a large number of them that hasn't had problems. Did they all do something to deserve it?

    Let me break this down for you:

    1980s - Hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq by Hussein. >1 million Muslims killed in Iran-Iraq War.

    1990s - Hussein deprives his people of food while living a billionaire's lifestyle himself. Hundred of thousands die. Come 2000, Millenial fuckwits blame it on NATO.

    2000s - Iraqi Sunni and Shia militia groups kill hundreds of thousands of each other whilst under occupation.

    2013 - Allies leave.

    2014-2017 - Sunnis form ISIS and hundreds of thousands more Iraqis die.

    What do all the victims have in common? All killed by Iraqis, with exception of Iran-Iraq War. Did the victim rate go up as a result of NATO intervention? No, it stayed the same.

    In order to lift the sanctions without risk he did. But many say we'd have been better leaving him there. Me? What do I think? Lot's of people would have died anyway.

    They knew about that shale oil before, the problem was the cost extracting it vs cost per barrel.

    The numbers are quoted here . Give it as much of a margin of error as you can -

    http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-08/news/mn-2590_1_gulf-war

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq#Effects_on_the_Iraqi_people_during_sanctions

    https://www.iraqbodycount.org/


    The blood of all those who died from something as common as the common cold to something as frightening as heart disease is on your head too. Apart from the sectarian hatred you helped unleash and fan.[/quote]
    Yes, because Saddam Hussein saw to himself and Ba'ath Party members first and decided to fund the military rather than save his people.

    http://personal.rhul.ac.uk/uhte/014/Truth and Death.pdf
    Not thinking they're as bad as Saddam Hussein doesn't mean I'd desperately like for a country ruled by a religious whack job to have nukes.


    It's called the Cold War. It was dirty but when you have a loon marauding across Europe you have to make sure oil supplies remain accessible.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Pact_invasion_of_Czechoslovakia

    And let's talk about what we were fighting against. Iran had cosied up with the countries of the two guys at the top, which made them fair game. India had also cosied up with the guy at the top, if you need to understand why the legacy of the Cold War stance favoured Pakistan, despite it being full of loons.

    [​IMG]

    I've made a special thread for your drivel.

    http://indiandefence.com/threads/the-indiranchandiran-defends-muslims-thread.59721/
     
  10. IndiranChandiran

    IndiranChandiran Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    795
    Country Flag:
    India

    Right now the only drivel I'm forced to read is the one I'm answering to. Debating can be fun when the opponent knows where he's cornered and plans a neat escape or is ambushed while attempting it. But you're a hopeless case , Padraig. You've neither wit , nor intelligence nor knowledge.All you do is re cycle the same old stuff. Carry on.

    Yawn.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  11. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    1. I thought India was one state.

    2. The EU is not a state or a federal entity, yet.

    I don't want to subsidise other states, we have enough problems at home to deal with. Their markets are also pathetic and will not bring in £10bn/year in tax revenue, in the case of those countries heavily subsidised.

    [​IMG]

    Slightly less than £200bn minus the Rotterdam effect and very little of it goes to the subsidised nations. And only £133bn of that includes physical goods which would be subject to tariffs and customs. Furthermore, tariffs we collect go direct to HMRC post Brexit, whereas EU tariffs all mostly go to the EU, not the member states.

    https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/money/revenue-income_en

    [​IMG]
     
  12. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Still haven't explained Boko Haram yet have you? Or Beslan. Or breakaway of Aceh under Sharia Law. Westgate Mall attack in Kenya. Mali uprising. They are not part of NATO. Tell me what they did wrong Apu Akbar?
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2017
  13. randomradio

    randomradio Colonel Technical Analyst

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2013
    Messages:
    11,206
    Likes Received:
    6,307
    I was referring to provinces within India. EU is like India, and the various countries are like provinces in India. Some are richer than others.

    It's the cost of peace.

    Regardless they are markets. And these underdeveloped markets in the EU still have a good population. Once they get richer, their size in your trade stats will get bigger.

    You are basically growing these economies so they will eventually buy services from you. And this creates jobs and value within the UK.

    Outside the EU, you will get slaughtered. S Korea and Japan are already facing the heat from China in high tech trade. India will follow suit as well. You see, when you end up in the WTO, you will find out it's not such a good place to be in because your competitors are better than you are. You are safe in the EU.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...pan-as-asia-s-top-high-tech-exporter-adb-says
     
  14. IndiranChandiran

    IndiranChandiran Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    695
    Likes Received:
    795
    Country Flag:
    India
    I don't need to.They're your problem .Deal with it.We've our own to contend with .

    P.S - btw your bosom pal - randomradio or some other busybody locked down your recent creation .Now , it's either the mods are muslim lovers or anti Irish.Both - would be a killer .

    Take your pick , O'Hara
     
  15. BMD

    BMD Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,789
    Likes Received:
    3,008
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    I disagree, the EU is not supposed to be a state, it is merely supposed to be a trading union.

    No, it isn't. I doubt Poland is going to invade if they don't get £12bn/year.

    In who's lifetime?

    There's only really £133bn worth of exports that will even face such competition and the money we save could be used as subsidees to the companies producing them to make them more competitive. Equally, we could used the money we gain from duties on £300bn worth of EU exports.

    I bet they included Taiwan in that though.;) And we all know how China made its sudden rise as a tech exporter. Copy and paste of western products made there.
     

Share This Page